|
Jim N7JB
The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee with determining any changes to the DXCC program and adopt the DXAC’s recommendations. I believe DXAC members have the knowledge and experience to make appropriate changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC can determine how remote operation can be used in the awards process, distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you don’t have to start over.
In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC decides unless there is an overriding reason not to; for instance, excessive cost to implement the rules change. If the board is unwilling to adopt the advisory committee recommendations, the board should not waste an AC’s time and should simply dissolve the AC.
I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even though I personally support the current DXCC rules. The DXAC should take into consideration all comments that the directors receive as well as the comments that are directed to DXAC members. I urge the board to forward director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as well as encourage other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am not supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue without full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one location, with a few contacts made from locations less than 150 miles from my primary QTH. No remote operation; my DXCC totals would not be affected by a rules change. If the rules do change and I end up moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
|
|
|
Gilbert Baron
I think there are valid arguments on both sides but I think operator skill as been overlooked here. As proved by RARC FD operations for example. Great station here with beams at at least 40 feet and some years with full power. The better operators got FAR FAR more contacts than the less skilled. I could use a super station like W0AIH and still not come even close to the totals that they get. The operator is FAR more important than the station. Well maybe if you were allowed unlimited power ??? We all remember the California KW I guess. 😊 Outlook Laptop Gil W0MN Hierro candente, batir de repente 44.08226N 92.51265W EN34rb
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Jim N7JB
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2019 00:19
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: [ARRL-Awards] DXCC Rules Changes: Let the DXAC Decide The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee with determining any changes to the DXCC program and adopt the DXAC’s recommendations. I believe DXAC members have the knowledge and experience to make appropriate changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC can determine how remote operation can be used in the awards process, distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you don’t have to start over. In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC decides unless there is an overriding reason not to; for instance, excessive cost to implement the rules change. If the board is unwilling to adopt the advisory committee recommendations, the board should not waste an AC’s time and should simply dissolve the AC. I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even though I personally support the current DXCC rules. The DXAC should take into consideration all comments that the directors receive as well as the comments that are directed to DXAC members. I urge the board to forward director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as well as encourage other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am not supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue without full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one location, with a few contacts made from locations less than 150 miles from my primary QTH. No remote operation; my DXCC totals would not be affected by a rules change. If the rules do change and I end up moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
|
|
|
Mickey Baker N4MB <fishflorida@...>
I agree with your view about the DXAC.
"The DXAC favored the proposed change of rule I.9, stating, however, some distance limitation
should be included for the remote station. Using an idea similar to that used for contest stations,
establishing a distance of 200km separation between the remote station and the operator’s home
station location and that no part of a remote station can be located more than 200km from any
other part."
This is an attempt to rectify that - another pass through the DXAC again would take another year to address. Enough people are upset at ARRL about this that it deserves.
The Board appoints DXAC members.
Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 8:45 AM Jim N7JB < n7jb@...> wrote: The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee with determining any changes to the DXCC program and adopt the DXAC’s recommendations. I believe DXAC members have the knowledge and experience to make appropriate changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC can determine how remote operation can be used in the awards process, distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you don’t have to start over.
In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC decides unless there is an overriding reason not to; for instance, excessive cost to implement the rules change. If the board is unwilling to adopt the advisory committee recommendations, the board should not waste an AC’s time and should simply dissolve the AC.
I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even though I personally support the current DXCC rules. The DXAC should take into consideration all comments that the directors receive as well as the comments that are directed to DXAC members. I urge the board to forward director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as well as encourage other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am not supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue without full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one location, with a few contacts made from locations less than 150 miles from my primary QTH. No remote operation; my DXCC totals would not be affected by a rules change. If the rules do change and I end up moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
|
|
|
Ria, N2RJ
I agree with consulting DXAC if there is a desire to evaluate the rules and determine if changes are needed. In general the process is that the programs and services committee should work with the DXAC on any DX rule changes and ideally the DXAC’s recommendation should br treated as a subject matter expert recommendation Any motions will come out of PSC.
With that said, the DXAC at the time recommended a 200km limit and the PSC decided not to adopt it. So there is a history of PSC going against the DXAC recommendations. I’ve been against that practice as I feel that it negates the work of the DXAC.
Mickey can present this to the current P&SC and work collaboratively with them on it and they will task it to DXAC. I would strongly recommend not throwing it onto the floor as it will not gather much support, especially from a freshman director. Significant changes are done collaboratively through committees and politically there is strong resistance when this process is not followed. I don’t know what committee assignments will be like in 2020 as that is decided by the President who is also up for election in January. Mickey should sit in on the PSC meeting in the attic at W1AW to get an understanding of what goes on. Any director can attend any committee meeting she or he chooses to.
Going with the previous recommendation is not what I would do at this point. Since the rule clarification has been in place for some time and remote operation is now allowed it would be good to study the impact, if any that it had and decide whether that impact has been positive or negative. This may also involve surveying members.
One final note - I can’t see the outcome of this making everyone happy. I’ve been personally attacked by the owner of a prominent rent-a-remote outfit because of my past statements against the rule clarification that allowed this practice as I was in favor of the previous DXAC recommendation. So be prepared :)
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 8:45 AM Jim N7JB < n7jb@...> wrote: The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee with determining any changes to the DXCC program and adopt the DXAC’s recommendations. I believe DXAC members have the knowledge and experience to make appropriate changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC can determine how remote operation can be used in the awards process, distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you don’t have to start over.
In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC decides unless there is an overriding reason not to; for instance, excessive cost to implement the rules change. If the board is unwilling to adopt the advisory committee recommendations, the board should not waste an AC’s time and should simply dissolve the AC.
I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even though I personally support the current DXCC rules. The DXAC should take into consideration all comments that the directors receive as well as the comments that are directed to DXAC members. I urge the board to forward director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as well as encourage other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am not supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue without full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one location, with a few contacts made from locations less than 150 miles from my primary QTH. No remote operation; my DXCC totals would not be affected by a rules change. If the rules do change and I end up moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
|
|
|
Neil Foster
Well said Ria...
Neil N4FN
On 27-Dec-19 9:59 AM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:
I agree with consulting DXAC if there is a
desire to evaluate the rules and determine if changes are
needed. In general the process is that the programs and
services committee should work with the DXAC on any DX rule
changes and ideally the DXAC’s recommendation should br
treated as a subject matter expert recommendation Any
motions will come out of PSC.
With that said, the DXAC at the time recommended
a 200km limit and the PSC decided not to adopt it. So there is
a history of PSC going against the DXAC recommendations. I’ve
been against that practice as I feel that it negates the work
of the DXAC.
Mickey can present this to the current P&SC
and work collaboratively with them on it and they will task it
to DXAC. I would strongly recommend not throwing it onto the
floor as it will not gather much support, especially from a
freshman director. Significant changes are done
collaboratively through committees and politically there is
strong resistance when this process is not followed. I don’t
know what committee assignments will be like in 2020 as that
is decided by the President who is also up for election in
January. Mickey should sit in on the PSC meeting in the attic
at W1AW to get an understanding of what goes on. Any director
can attend any committee meeting she or he chooses to.
Going with the previous recommendation is not
what I would do at this point. Since the rule clarification
has been in place for some time and remote operation is now
allowed it would be good to study the impact, if any that it
had and decide whether that impact has been positive or
negative. This may also involve surveying members.
One final note - I can’t see the outcome of this
making everyone happy. I’ve been personally attacked by the
owner of a prominent rent-a-remote outfit because of my past
statements against the rule clarification that allowed this
practice as I was in favor of the previous DXAC
recommendation. So be prepared :)
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at
8:45 AM Jim N7JB < n7jb@...>
wrote:
The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee
with determining any changes to the DXCC program and
adopt the DXAC’s recommendations. I believe DXAC members
have the knowledge and experience to make appropriate
changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC can determine how remote
operation can be used in the awards process,
distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into
four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you
don’t have to start over.
In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC
decides unless there is an overriding reason not to; for
instance, excessive cost to implement the rules change.
If the board is unwilling to adopt the advisory
committee recommendations, the board should not waste an
AC’s time and should simply dissolve the AC.
I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even
though I personally support the current DXCC rules. The
DXAC should take into consideration all comments that
the directors receive as well as the comments that are
directed to DXAC members. I urge the board to forward
director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as well as encourage
other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am not
supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue
without full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one
location, with a few contacts made from locations less
than 150 miles from my primary QTH. No remote
operation; my DXCC totals would not be affected by a
rules change. If the rules do change and I end up
moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
|
|
|
Skip
Well said Jim, and the first thing I thought
of when I read Mickey's post. We have a DXAC, they have a
charter, and the members are DX folk. They should be reading this
list [maybe they are], and any recommendation(s) should come from
the committee.
73,
Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County
On 12/26/2019 10:18 PM, Jim N7JB wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee with
determining any changes to the DXCC program and adopt the DXAC’s
recommendations. I believe DXAC members have the knowledge and
experience to make appropriate changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC
can determine how remote operation can be used in the awards
process, distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into
four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you don’t have
to start over.
In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC decides
unless there is an overriding reason not to; for instance,
excessive cost to implement the rules change. If the board is
unwilling to adopt the advisory committee recommendations, the
board should not waste an AC’s time and should simply dissolve
the AC.
I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even though
I personally support the current DXCC rules. The DXAC should
take into consideration all comments that the directors receive
as well as the comments that are directed to DXAC members. I
urge the board to forward director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as
well as encourage other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am
not supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue without
full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one
location, with a few contacts made from locations less than 150
miles from my primary QTH. No remote operation; my DXCC totals
would not be affected by a rules change. If the rules do change
and I end up moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
E.F.A.
Project, and is believed to be clean.
|
|
|
Mickey Baker N4MB <fishflorida@...>
Prudent advice. Normally, I would agree and move on, but I’ve researched this and hope you’ll read what else I’ve found.
During my campaign, I heard many times about how difficult it seemed to get anything accomplished in Newington. I think that this is an example.
The DXAC was AGAIN charged by the Programs and Services Committee with reviewing this issue in 2017. This is their interesting report:
From this document, the charge from PSC was: “ Please consider potential ethical issues with regard to legal, remote-controlled operations, and how these operations comport with DXCC rules. Then, please consider DXCC Rule 11”
And the response from the DXAC included this statement:
“I received this tasking in late March 2017 and spent several weeks clarifying the tasking, the limits of the opinion that DXAC was asked to provide, and the reason that the DXAC was referring this particular issue since in many ways, the DXAC was being asked to consider an ethics statement that it had previously suggested not be accepted, and dealt with an issue (unlimited use of remote radio stations) to make contacts which would be used for DXCC credit that the DXAC had recommended against.”
The DXAC Chair concludes,
“ In summary 1.) There was no strong consensus to change Rule 11 2.) There was a surprising lack of enthusiasm on the part of DXAC to deal with this tasking. 3.) There was a general unhappiness with the whole remote issue as it deals with DXCC, but the feeling that the decision had already been made and unless that decision was re-considered in its entirety, there was little that could be recommended to improve potential problems.”
The report to the Board by the PSC was two sentences:
“DX Advisory Committee (DXAC): PSC tasked DXAC with researching the ethics of remote operating and how they relate to DXCC rules, please see their respective report for specifics. Dwayne Allen WY7FD serves as the DXAC board liaison.”
I feel that this issue is ripe for Board action, having been through PSC and DXAC twice, three years apart, the later essentially RATIFYING the first recommendation!
Do you believe that this needs a third pass through PSC/DXAC?
This is transparency. PSC did not take action on these recommendations.
Does anyone know specifically why?
On Dec 27, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:
I agree with consulting DXAC if there is a desire to evaluate the rules and determine if changes are needed. In general the process is that the programs and services committee should work with the DXAC on any DX rule changes and ideally the DXAC’s recommendation should br treated as a subject matter expert recommendation Any motions will come out of PSC.
With that said, the DXAC at the time recommended a 200km limit and the PSC decided not to adopt it. So there is a history of PSC going against the DXAC recommendations. I’ve been against that practice as I feel that it negates the work of the DXAC.
Mickey can present this to the current P&SC and work collaboratively with them on it and they will task it to DXAC. I would strongly recommend not throwing it onto the floor as it will not gather much support, especially from a freshman director. Significant changes are done collaboratively through committees and politically there is strong resistance when this process is not followed. I don’t know what committee assignments will be like in 2020 as that is decided by the President who is also up for election in January. Mickey should sit in on the PSC meeting in the attic at W1AW to get an understanding of what goes on. Any director can attend any committee meeting she or he chooses to.
Going with the previous recommendation is not what I would do at this point. Since the rule clarification has been in place for some time and remote operation is now allowed it would be good to study the impact, if any that it had and decide whether that impact has been positive or negative. This may also involve surveying members.
One final note - I can’t see the outcome of this making everyone happy. I’ve been personally attacked by the owner of a prominent rent-a-remote outfit because of my past statements against the rule clarification that allowed this practice as I was in favor of the previous DXAC recommendation. So be prepared :)
73 Ria, N2RJ On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 8:45 AM Jim N7JB < n7jb@...> wrote: The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee with determining any changes to the DXCC program and adopt the DXAC’s recommendations. I believe DXAC members have the knowledge and experience to make appropriate changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC can determine how remote operation can be used in the awards process, distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you don’t have to start over.
In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC decides unless there is an overriding reason not to; for instance, excessive cost to implement the rules change. If the board is unwilling to adopt the advisory committee recommendations, the board should not waste an AC’s time and should simply dissolve the AC.
I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even though I personally support the current DXCC rules. The DXAC should take into consideration all comments that the directors receive as well as the comments that are directed to DXAC members. I urge the board to forward director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as well as encourage other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am not supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue without full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one location, with a few contacts made from locations less than 150 miles from my primary QTH. No remote operation; my DXCC totals would not be affected by a rules change. If the rules do change and I end up moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
|
|
|
Any particular reason why 200km was selected as the benchmark, and not 200 miles? I (of course) have a vested interest, I have a site I can operate from on private property in the middle of a national forest, with none of the antenna restrictions I currently face at home. It is, however, slightly less than 10 miles outside the 200km restriction.
--
Thanks,
Bill
KM6MHZ
On December 27, 2019 at 6:59 AM "Ria, N2RJ" <rjairam@...> wrote:
I agree with consulting DXAC if there is a desire to evaluate the rules and determine if changes are needed. In general the process is that the programs and services committee should work with the DXAC on any DX rule changes and ideally the DXAC’s recommendation should br treated as a subject matter expert recommendation Any motions will come out of PSC.
With that said, the DXAC at the time recommended a 200km limit and the PSC decided not to adopt it. So there is a history of PSC going against the DXAC recommendations. I’ve been against that practice as I feel that it negates the work of the DXAC.
Mickey can present this to the current P&SC and work collaboratively with them on it and they will task it to DXAC. I would strongly recommend not throwing it onto the floor as it will not gather much support, especially from a freshman director. Significant changes are done collaboratively through committees and politically there is strong resistance when this process is not followed. I don’t know what committee assignments will be like in 2020 as that is decided by the President who is also up for election in January. Mickey should sit in on the PSC meeting in the attic at W1AW to get an understanding of what goes on. Any director can attend any committee meeting she or he chooses to.
Going with the previous recommendation is not what I would do at this point. Since the rule clarification has been in place for some time and remote operation is now allowed it would be good to study the impact, if any that it had and decide whether that impact has been positive or negative. This may also involve surveying members.
One final note - I can’t see the outcome of this making everyone happy. I’ve been personally attacked by the owner of a prominent rent-a-remote outfit because of my past statements against the rule clarification that allowed this practice as I was in favor of the previous DXAC recommendation. So be prepared :)
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 8:45 AM Jim N7JB <
n7jb@...> wrote:
The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee with determining any changes to the DXCC program and adopt the DXAC’s recommendations. I believe DXAC members have the knowledge and experience to make appropriate changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC can determine how remote operation can be used in the awards process, distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you don’t have to start over.
In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC decides unless there is an overriding reason not to; for instance, excessive cost to implement the rules change. If the board is unwilling to adopt the advisory committee recommendations, the board should not waste an AC’s time and should simply dissolve the AC.
I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even though I personally support the current DXCC rules. The DXAC should take into consideration all comments that the directors receive as well as the comments that are directed to DXAC members. I urge the board to forward director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as well as encourage other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am not supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue without full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one location, with a few contacts made from locations less than 150 miles from my primary QTH. No remote operation; my DXCC totals would not be affected by a rules change. If the rules do change and I end up moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
|
|
|
Ria, N2RJ
As far as I know, 200km is consistent with VUCC.
Kilometers is what the majority of the world uses. Since DXCC is an award for working entities across the world, it is better to use metric for that.
Note that for the WAS award they have a 50 mile circle limitation.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 6:55 AM Bill Richter < brichter@...> wrote:
Any particular reason why 200km was selected as the benchmark, and not 200 miles? I (of course) have a vested interest, I have a site I can operate from on private property in the middle of a national forest, with none of the antenna restrictions I currently face at home. It is, however, slightly less than 10 miles outside the 200km restriction.
--
Thanks,
Bill
KM6MHZ
On December 27, 2019 at 6:59 AM "Ria, N2RJ" <rjairam@...> wrote:
I agree with consulting DXAC if there is a desire to evaluate the rules and determine if changes are needed. In general the process is that the programs and services committee should work with the DXAC on any DX rule changes and ideally the DXAC’s recommendation should br treated as a subject matter expert recommendation Any motions will come out of PSC.
With that said, the DXAC at the time recommended a 200km limit and the PSC decided not to adopt it. So there is a history of PSC going against the DXAC recommendations. I’ve been against that practice as I feel that it negates the work of the DXAC.
Mickey can present this to the current P&SC and work collaboratively with them on it and they will task it to DXAC. I would strongly recommend not throwing it onto the floor as it will not gather much support, especially from a freshman director. Significant changes are done collaboratively through committees and politically there is strong resistance when this process is not followed. I don’t know what committee assignments will be like in 2020 as that is decided by the President who is also up for election in January. Mickey should sit in on the PSC meeting in the attic at W1AW to get an understanding of what goes on. Any director can attend any committee meeting she or he chooses to.
Going with the previous recommendation is not what I would do at this point. Since the rule clarification has been in place for some time and remote operation is now allowed it would be good to study the impact, if any that it had and decide whether that impact has been positive or negative. This may also involve surveying members.
One final note - I can’t see the outcome of this making everyone happy. I’ve been personally attacked by the owner of a prominent rent-a-remote outfit because of my past statements against the rule clarification that allowed this practice as I was in favor of the previous DXAC recommendation. So be prepared :)
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 8:45 AM Jim N7JB <
n7jb@...> wrote:
The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee with determining any changes to the DXCC program and adopt the DXAC’s recommendations. I believe DXAC members have the knowledge and experience to make appropriate changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC can determine how remote operation can be used in the awards process, distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you don’t have to start over.
In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC decides unless there is an overriding reason not to; for instance, excessive cost to implement the rules change. If the board is unwilling to adopt the advisory committee recommendations, the board should not waste an AC’s time and should simply dissolve the AC.
I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even though I personally support the current DXCC rules. The DXAC should take into consideration all comments that the directors receive as well as the comments that are directed to DXAC members. I urge the board to forward director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as well as encourage other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am not supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue without full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one location, with a few contacts made from locations less than 150 miles from my primary QTH. No remote operation; my DXCC totals would not be affected by a rules change. If the rules do change and I end up moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
|
|
|
While I don't think a rule change should be made, I do agree that a process that's inclusive of the DXAC and takes into account their findings is the a good way to proceed.
|
|
|
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
Ria,
Just re-read your posting. 200 km for VUCC. That seems reasonable for HF as well.
DOH!
73,
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
201.314.6964
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:18 AM -0500, "Ria, N2RJ" <rjairam@...> wrote:
As far as I know, 200km is consistent with VUCC.
Kilometers is what the majority of the world uses. Since DXCC is an award for working entities across the world, it is better to use metric for that.
Note that for the WAS award they have a 50 mile circle limitation.
73 Ria, N2RJ On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 6:55 AM Bill Richter < brichter@...> wrote:
Any particular reason why 200km was selected as the benchmark, and not 200 miles? I (of course) have a vested interest, I have a site I can operate from on private property in the middle of a national forest, with none of the antenna restrictions I currently face at home. It is, however, slightly less than 10 miles outside the 200km restriction.
--
Thanks,
Bill
KM6MHZ
On December 27, 2019 at 6:59 AM "Ria, N2RJ" <rjairam@...> wrote:
I agree with consulting DXAC if there is a desire to evaluate the rules and determine if changes are needed. In general the process is that the programs and services committee should work with the DXAC on any DX rule changes and ideally the DXAC’s recommendation should br treated as a subject matter expert recommendation Any motions will come out of PSC.
With that said, the DXAC at the time recommended a 200km limit and the PSC decided not to adopt it. So there is a history of PSC going against the DXAC recommendations. I’ve been against that practice as I feel that it negates the work of the DXAC.
Mickey can present this to the current P&SC and work collaboratively with them on it and they will task it to DXAC. I would strongly recommend not throwing it onto the floor as it will not gather much support, especially from a freshman director. Significant changes are done collaboratively through committees and politically there is strong resistance when this process is not followed. I don’t know what committee assignments will be like in 2020 as that is decided by the President who is also up for election in January. Mickey should sit in on the PSC meeting in the attic at W1AW to get an understanding of what goes on. Any director can attend any committee meeting she or he chooses to.
Going with the previous recommendation is not what I would do at this point. Since the rule clarification has been in place for some time and remote operation is now allowed it would be good to study the impact, if any that it had and decide whether that impact has been positive or negative. This may also involve surveying members.
One final note - I can’t see the outcome of this making everyone happy. I’ve been personally attacked by the owner of a prominent rent-a-remote outfit because of my past statements against the rule clarification that allowed this practice as I was in favor of the previous DXAC recommendation. So be prepared :)
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 8:45 AM Jim N7JB <
n7jb@...> wrote:
The ARRL Board should task the DX Advisory Committee with determining any changes to the DXCC program and adopt the DXAC’s recommendations. I believe DXAC members have the knowledge and experience to make appropriate changes to DXCC rules. The DXAC can determine how remote operation can be used in the awards process, distance-based rules, or perhaps dividing the U.S. into four sectors where if you stay in your “sector,” you don’t have to start over.
In general, the board should accept whatever the DXAC decides unless there is an overriding reason not to; for instance, excessive cost to implement the rules change. If the board is unwilling to adopt the advisory committee recommendations, the board should not waste an AC’s time and should simply dissolve the AC.
I am willing to support whatever the DXAC decides, even though I personally support the current DXCC rules. The DXAC should take into consideration all comments that the directors receive as well as the comments that are directed to DXAC members. I urge the board to forward director-elect N4MB’s proposal, as well as encourage other proposals to be considered to DXAC. I am not supportive of the ARRL Board determining this issue without full consideration by DXAC.
The QSOs for my 8-band DXCC were made primarily from one location, with a few contacts made from locations less than 150 miles from my primary QTH. No remote operation; my DXCC totals would not be affected by a rules change. If the rules do change and I end up moving out of my DXCC “area,” I’ll just start over.
73, Jim N7JB
|
|
|
