Alan,

> unresolvable, best left without further argument. The Spanish proposal to
> name after an Iberian deity makes a clear statement and reopens a wound
> best left closed. The name approved by the IAU, which follows a pattern of
> the last couple names by Brown et al., shows a similar level of deference
> to that group. I would have hoped for a neutral name that would send no
> message either way. It's too bad one group or the other was not
> magnanimous enough to make such a proposal and let past disagreements rest.

The CSBN *was* discussing a "neutral" name. One member of CSBN
proposed the name "Dagda", a god from Irish mythology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dagda

But... guess what... that was not enough for Brown/Marsden so the latter
pushed Brown's proposal. And Marsden's intention was to also change
the discoverers record, i.e. removing the Spanish team and inserting only
the Brown team into the official files. That will probably happen today.

So you make a discovery, report it to the MPC, get a discovery
MPEC and full credit, you are the official discoverer of that object
for three years in all official MPC files. The object gets numbered
and your team is the official discoverer of the numbered object,
everything published in all MPC publications. You submit your naming
proposal to the CSBN. CSBN has to approve the name, or reject it
if it violates any naming rules. Issuing discovery credit is *not*
their business.

But what is CSBN doing? They strip off your rights and accept the
naming proposal of someone else, rejecting you proposal without any
feedback. And probably they will even force MPC to change the records
about this discovery in the MPC documents. So much about
MPC's authority in issuing discovery credit for minor planets.

The naming proposal they accepted is from someone who claims
to have "discovered" the object exclusively, he just was too selfish
to report it to the MPC to receive credit. Only more than one year
after the discovery announcement, around Sept 24, 2006, our wannabe
discoverer reports one lousy set of astrometry. At this point that
object was already numbered! His contribution practically zero.
Yet he gets the right to name it, thanks to his personal connection
to the CSBN secretary. And probably as of today he will also be
proclaimed the official discoverer of the object.
I don't think corruption can be more obvious than in this abhorrent case.

For the record:

Discovery MPEC with discovery credit for Ortiz et al.:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O36.html

Numbering of (136108) 2003 EL61 with discovery credit
for Ortiz et al.:
MPC57608 from 2006 Sept. 7, see "Summary of new numberings".

MPC discovery circumstances of numbered minor planets:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/NumberedMPs135001.html
---
Number (& Name) Prov. Discovery Name
Discoverer(s)
Des. Date Site Ref.
(136108) 2003 EL61 2003 03 07 Sierra Nevada
Aceituno, F. J., Santos-Sanz, P., Ortiz, J. L.
---

MPES entry:
---
(136108) Haumea = 2003 EL61

Display all designations for this object / Show naming citation

Epoch 2008 Nov. 30.0 TT = JDT 2454800.5 MPC
M 202.66919 (2000.0) P Q
n 0.00347892 Peri. 239.18665 +0.91324637 -0.07410206
T = 2500024.53461 JDT
a 43.1359862 Node 122.10320 +0.13242701 +0.98391570
q = 34.7266017
e 0.1949506 Incl. 28.22440 -0.38528450 +0.16253853
P 283 H 0.2 G 0.15 U 3
From 93 observations at 12 oppositions, 1955-2006, mean residual 0".42.

Last observed on 2008 June 25. Perturbed ephemeris below based on elements from
MPO 103000.

Discovery date : 2003 03 07
Discovery site : Sierra Nevada
Discoverer(s) : Aceituno, F. J., Santos-Sanz, P., Ortiz, J. L.
---

I am curious how CSBN will justify (if they care to justify their unfair
actions at all) why they stripped off the discoverer's naming rights
from the Spanish team, and possibly further illegal actions.

Reiner