In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

That's the point -those existing regulations
incorporate by reference an international
requirement that no longer exists

I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be
ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the only
"international requirements" recognized by this country are those in the
treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the recent
changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges.

What's all this "treaty ratification" thing?!?

I thought that the US Congress ALREADY ratified membership with
the United Nations and the UN organizations long ago. The ITU is a
UN organization.

Does the US Congress "have to ratify" each and every change in any
ITU that effects US civil communications laws? I don't see any such
"ratification" process for any number of decisions done by the FCC
in regards to FCC International Bureau decisions. Please explain.

To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments above),
the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the only
treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently ratified).

Code testing is the "only" treaty the US "recognizes?"

FCC does considerable International communications decision-
making without any fuss and furor about "treaty ratification."

Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the changes),
at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider
eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty change
does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up to each
member state to decide for themselves.

Our states decide whether or not to test for amateur morse code?!?

Will this "ratification" be done in a General Election or a special
Election like ratifying an amendment to our Constitution?

Is there some kind of separate "treaty" concerning morse code that
is NOT done with the ITU?

The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is
ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other
words, don't hold your breath).

Please explain this new "ratification" process.

I was sure the USA had already joined the International
Telecommunications Union and agreed to abide by THAT treaty.

LHA