Summary:

Current rule: Add to your DXCC totals from anywhere within the DXCC
entity. So you can work from Maine, and work DX that is favorable out
East and then log in to a station in Western Washington or Oregon, and
then work DX that is favorable on the other coast.

Proposed rule:

Pick one of:
Work all DX from stations within a 200km circle from your station
address as registered with the FCC
OR
Work all DX from within a 200km circle anywhere within the DXCC entity


AND
Designate one additional location to work DX from and have it count for DXCC.

That is the summary.

AA6YQ's suggestion was:
Keep the rules as-is
AND
Offer a "single location endorsement" that says that you worked all DX
from one small circle. This would be similar to WAS where all contacts
have to be made from a circle of a maximum of 50 miles in diameter.

This is just an endorsement and does not affect the existing or any
future DXCC awards. It is completely optional.

Ria
N2RJ

Ria
N2RJ

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 13:00, Skip <k6dgw@...> wrote:

and, many who might have an opinion one way or another may not be subscribed to ARRL Awards email or otherwise be unaware of the changes being considered? The commentary here is certainly self-selected, "The kiss of death in statistics." Normally in a membership organization, a committee tasked with determining if there is a problem and what possible solutions might work would survey with a large enough random sample for statistical significance. DXCC would seem to be important enough to warrant some effort in this direction.

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 8/11/2020 3:03 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:

Like the symbol rate discussions there are one or two people who dominate the postings and people would rather not get in the middle of it. That’s probably why you aren’t seeing more participation.

Ria
N2RJ

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote:

I think those that say propagation hopping is happening frequently and apparently ruining the award should provide facts not hearsay. Why are the big names behind this STILL hiding behind curtains?

W0MU

On 8/11/2020 3:21 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:

This is an unscientific poll. There has also been a call to action by one of the remote services. So I wouldn’t say that 3:1 is truly reflective of the ham radio population.

Ria
N2RJ

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 5:13 PM Lin Holcomb <lin@...> wrote:

Yes is seems so and seems arbitrary. and from my own experiments propagation does not vary on >17m inside a 500km radius, but <12m it varries greatly inside a 50km area.
73,
Lin
PS as a DXAC member I suggest you read all of the comments, by my count it is about 3:1 opposed to a change. While might does not make right it does make a difference in donations, membership and votes.