The word "sanitize" is a loaded word. I would say that it is
inaccurate to call it "sanitizing."

There is deliberation and discussion. As I said, not every suggestion
or position or opinion will make it to the final recommendation. Nor
will it be a direct democracy where the idea with the most votes wins.
Not everyone is going to be happy, nor is that the intention. However,
the aim is to have a fair outcome for all.

The DXAC's recommendation is also not going to be set in stone as the
PSC's recommendation. The PSC are the ones with a vote and the DXAC's
recommendation is one of several used to make a final decision.

As far as the timing goes, ARRL has two Board meetings per year. With
this timing it will be January before this even gets to the full Board
for a vote. DXCC is one of the PSC items that requires a full Board
vote. I have not decided how I will vote as of yet. I am waiting for
the DXAC and PSC reports.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 11:32, Murray Green via groups.arrl.org
<k3beq=verizon.net@...> wrote:

Thank you Ria. My reply is below:
73 Murray K3BEQ


-----Original Message-----
From: Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...>
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2020 11:10 am
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC

Hi Murray,

DXAC will take the comments and condense their findings into a report
to present to PSC.

**If the DXAC takes the comments (here) and condenses their findings into a report to the PSC are you saying the PSC then further sanitizes it making a determination what stays and what goes over-riding any DXAC comments? If correct is the originator of a suggestion given the courtesy of a reply by the PSC or does he/her have to wait months for the final outcome. Realize you cannot please everyone nor was that the intent of my question. Thanks and look forward to your reply.... Murray K3BEQ

PSC may also discuss some of what is discussed here.

You can't please everyone so not every suggestion will end up in the
final recommendation (and motion, if any). However they are discussed.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 11:04, Murray Green via groups.arrl.org
<k3beq=verizon.net@...> wrote:

Question: All of the suggestions, recommendations etc. proposed here, including those not associated with the current DXCC changes, who follows through on them and takes action? People spend a lot of time coming up with some cogent recommendations and they should be informed of it's status after submission here..including a point of contact. .Letting them know it is a good idea is not enough in my humble opinion...Thanks
73 Murray K3BEQ
================


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Rutledge <steven.t.rutledge@...>
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2020 10:44 am
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC

Great idea Dave. Thanks for bringing it up again.

Steve, N4JQQ, DXAC, Delta

On 8/7/2020 11:51 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:

Though an SWL in my youth, I didn't set foot in an operating amateur radio station until the age of 40, when my older son's scout troop participate in JOTA. We both earned our novice tickets in 1990, and I was immediately infected by the DXing virus, for which I had no immunity. The Northern California DX Club provided excellent DXing Elmers, initially on the club's VHF repeater and later on its VHF packet cluster. A Cushcraft A3 tribander and an SB-220 amp acquired at the local flea market combined with software (DXLab) I developed to identify activity patterns and band openings from the DX spot data stream got me to little pistol status, but as the engineering leader of a struggling Silicon Valley startup, my "DXing time" was limited.

In 1997, growth in our business required me to relocate to the Boston area. I was thrilled that this relocation would not reset my DXing totals. In our new QTH, I put up a tower, Force-12 beams, a full-height vertical on 80m, an inverted L on 160m, and enjoyed QRO DXing from the northeast. For several years, I made QSOs from both coasts. Eventually, our company was acquired, enabling me to spend more time DXing and further developing DXLab. I've reached the top of the Honor Roll, and DXCC Challenge 3000.

From first-hand experience, I say that reaching the top of the Honor Roll and DXCC Challenge 3000 from a single geographic area is a much greater accomplishment than attaining these milestones with QSOs made from both US coasts, as I did.

Debating the wisdom of the past DXCC rule changes regarding remote operation is a waste of time. Remote operation makes amateur radio more accessible, for the many reasons already stated in this discussion. Awards have been granted based on QSOs made using remote stations; de-valuing these accomplishments is the last thing we should do.

But neither should we ignore the accomplishments of those DXers who have achieved DXCC milestones by making QSOs from within a single geographic area. I thus repeat the proposal I made here when this issue arose several months ago: the ARRL should create a new "Single Area Endorsement" for DXCC, 5-band DXCC, Honor Roll, and Challenge awards. This Endorsement would be awarded to any DXCC member who submits a statement asserting that his or her QSOs were all made from locations within X miles of each other, where X is a number like 200. A provided "Single Area Endorsement" sticker could be affixed to DXCC award certificates and plaques; "Single Area" Endorsements would also be indicated in the online DXCC standings.

This approach would retain the expansion powered by remote operation, while recognizing those DXers who "did it the hard way" -- from a single geographic area.

This approach would not break new ground: there are separate DXCC Honor Rolls for CW, SSB, and Digital Mode operation.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ