Re: DXCC Entity qualification transparency


I seem to recall that this all came about when the League "went Metric".
That had the effect of reducing the Seperation requirement from 250
miles to 225 miles.

The cry from Finland went out ... get out the Nautical Charts !!

This change resulted in more than just Scarborough Reef getting added.
There were other rocks and islands that now qualifed and were activated.

All perfectly legal at the time. Just like the S.M.O.M. and Mt. Athos.

73, Dick, W1KSZ

From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> on behalf of Mark ZL3AB <markzl3ab@...>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 8:59 PM
To: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...>
Subject: [ARRL-Awards] DXCC Entity qualification transparency
In researching the eligibility of Scarborough Reef (see that thread if you want to see what I wrote) it became apparent to me the ARRL really needs to take some steps to make DXCC entity eligibility more transparent and easier to follow.  I'd suggest two changes:
1.  The DXCC entity list needs to have notations added stating the criteria the following entities were added under:
a) those entities covered by DXCC List Criteria rule 3 e) - which says entities on the 1998 list remain on the list as long as they meet the criteria upon which they were added; and 
b) any entity subsequently grandfathered because of a rule change (see DXCC List Criteria rule 5).
2. All previous versions of the DXCC criteria and rules should be published on the ARRL website so it is easy to find what the criteria and rules were at any given time.  
Not only would this give some sorely needed transparency to the addition and removal of entities, it would also stop the "how is [insert entity here] on the DXCC list" threads on the various email reflectors. 
It might also stop situations like the case of Kingman Reef which was only deleted due to a change of administration in 2016 despite that change having happened sixteen years earlier in 2000.  See here and here
Mark ZL3AB

Join to automatically receive all group messages.