 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
submitted by
Wayne Mills, N7NG
Chairman, DXAC
Introduction
Agenda Items -- Discussion
DXCC Status
Appendix A - DXAC Membership
Appendix B - DXCC2000 Assessment
Appendix C - Report on Improving the Awareness of the DXCC2000 Program
Appendix D - Report on Methods of Selecting DXCC Field Representatives
The past half year has been relatively productive for the DXAC. During this period, the committee completed work on three new entity issues. The committee dealt effectively with these matters. In addition to the new entity matters and existing agenda items, the committee was given the additional tasks of advising in two important areas. The committee continues to exhibit rational, albeit limited discussion and good judgment in the performance of its duties.
At its March meeting, the MSC asked the DXAC to assess the membership acceptance of the new DXCC2000 program. Several members have delivered input to the committee. A preliminary report was delivered to the MSC for its July meeting. It appears from reports that the implementation of the new DXCC 2000 revised rules has slowly begun to be studied by the DXCC membership. Other reports indicate widespread unfamiliarity with the new program.
This report lists and discusses the agenda items currently under consideration as well as those completed during the last six months. The current status of the committee is also described briefly. Included in the appendix are reports made to the MSC regarding suggestions for improving the awareness of the DXCC2000 program and suggestions on selecting DXCC Field Checkers.
1) New Country Petitions
b) Australs and Marquesas Islands
2) DXCC2000 Program Assessment
3) Increasing Awareness of the DXCC2000 Program
4) DXCC Field Representative Selection
1) Discussion - New Entity Petitions
Under the DXCC rules which were implemented on 31. March, 1998, a few areas previously not qualified for DXCC Entity status now qualify. Petitions were filed in April seeking recognition for three potential DXCC Entities: The Temotu Islands (Temotu Province of Solomon Islands), The Austral Islands and the Marquesas Islands of French Polynesia.
A petition asking for DXCC status of the Temotu Province Islands was filed by Tim Totten, N4GN on behalf of the H40AA DXpedition group. It is based on the slight change in separation requirements which resulted form changing the unit of distance measurement from the mile to the kilometer. Maps were obtained and studied by Garth Hamilton, DXAC Representative for the RAC. Garth reported to the committee that the distances involved meet DXCC requirements. A vote was conducted and a recommendation to add this entity to the DXCC list in July, 1998.
A petition asking for DXCC status for the Australs and Marquesas was filed by Paul Granger, F6EXV. The basis for this petition is that under the new DXCC rules, French Polynesia is, effective with the implementation of the new rules, a political entity by virtue of its IARU membership society. The DXCC status of French Polynesia has been administratively changed to that of a political entity. The remaining issue involves determination of whether these islands meet the distance requirements. Proper maps were obtained and the distances involved were found to qualify these entities for addition to the DXCC list. A vote on the status of these islands was scheduled. The results of the vote were to recommend the addition of these entities to the DXCC list.
All three entities, The Temotu Province Islands of The Solomon Islands, The Marquesas and the Austral Islands of French Polynesia were added to the DXCC list. The starting time and date for QSOs was determined by the DXCC administration to be 2359Z, 31, March, 1998. QSL cards were accepted beginning on the first of October, 1998.
2) Discussion - DXCC2000 Program Assessment
At its March meeting, the MSC decided to make several requests of the DXAC. One of these requests deals with an assessment of the DXCC 2000 Program:
"The MSC requests that the DXAC assess DXCC membership opinion on the new DXCC2000 program. A preliminary report is desired for the July 1998 Board meeting, with a final report no later than the January, 1999 Board meeting. This should be handled as a policy issue; that is, DXCC member input should be solicited."
In response, the Chairman charged the committee with the task in [DXAC:907]. A report has been prepared by the Chairman of the DXAC and submitted to the MSC for its January, 1999 meeting. This report is attached as Appendix B
3) Discussion - Increasing Awareness of the DXCC2000 Program
The DXAC was asked by the MSC to suggest methods by which the DX public could be made more aware of the DXCC2000 Program. A report has been prepared by the Chairman of the DXAC and submitted to the MSC for its January, 1999 meeting. This report is attached as Appendix C.
4) Discussion - DXCC Field Representative Selection
The DXAC was asked by the MSC to help determine a procedure for selecting DXCC Field Representatives. A report was prepared by the Chairman of the DXAC and submitted to the MSC for its January, 1999 meeting. This report is attached to this report as Appendix D.
The role of the DX Advisory Committee was clarified in July, 1995. As a result, the long-term policy giving the DXAC powerful discretion over country matters was changed. This change was necessary to reaffirm the role of the DXAC as an advisory committee. Since then new rules governing the operation of advisory committees have been implemented and additional "new entity" issues have been handled successfully. It is truly a pleasure to deal with the new entity rules and issues. When DXers inquire about the possibility of certain locations becoming new DXCC entities, it is simple and straightforward to inform them of the new procedures.
As I commented in the January Report to the Board, the pendulum has moved in a direction opposite from where it had been. The committee is performing a lesser role that in the past. So far, this role is being performed properly and successfully. How far the pendulum has moved and how much the committee has been affected, however, is now a matter for observation. To fine tune the system and assure that all DX related committees will continue to function effectively, a look at the "balance of power" should be made. There is no question that the aforementioned changes have had a significant effect on the committee. The committee seems to be performing its function effectively and with a reasoned, professional approach. What the future will hold has yet to be revealed.
DX ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Revised 9/3/98
Atlantic
Tony Gargano, N2SS
26 Winchester Dr., Sewell, NJ 08080
(H)609-227-4896; (W)201-358-4205
Internet: Tony_Gargano@mail.sel.sony.com
Central
Jim O'Connell, W9WU
512 West Elm Ave., La Grange, IL 60525
(H)708-482-7373; (W)312-793-2380; Fax: 312-793-3195
Internet: jimw9wu@aol.com
Dakota
Paul D. Larson, K0PA
1132 Buchanan St., Minneapolis, MN 55413
(H)612-789-6482; (W)612-854-8600
Delta
Michael W. Mayer, W5ZPA
5836 Marcia Ave., New Orleans, LA 70124
(H)504-486-6739; (W)504-522-0294
Internet: w5zpa@ix.netcom.com
Great Lakes
Theodore Pauck, Jr., K8NA
2820 Lenox Rd., Troy, MI 48098
(H)248-641-7168; (W)734-266-3884
Internet: k8na@ix.netcom.com
Hudson
Richard Wujciak, K2RW
7 Woodside Dr., Rockaway, NJ 07866
(H)973-625-3258
Internet: k2rw@njdxa.org
Midwest
Clifford H. Ahrens, K0CA
65 Pioneer Trail, Hannibal, MO 63401
(H)573-221-8618; (W)314-340-6932
Internet: k0ca@nemonet.com
New England
James Dione, K1MEM
31 De Marco Rd., Sudbury, MA 01776
(W)508-879-0607
Internet: k1mem@aol.com
Northwestern
Dick Moen, N7RO
2935 Plymouth Dr., Bellingham, WA 98225
(H)360-734-0858; (W)360-856-0836, Ext. 44
Internet: n7ro@arrl.net
Pacific
John Troster, W6ISQ
82 Belbrook Way, Atherton, CA 94027
(H)415-854-3939
Internet: jmtroster@aol.com
Roanoke
Gary Dixon, K4MQG
1606 Crescent Ridge, Fort Mill, SC 29715
(H)803-547-7450; (W)704-554-2367; (W)800-438-7019, Ext. 2367; Fax: 704-554-2765
Internet: gdixon@infoave.net
Southeastern
Bart Fay, W4NS
113 Malor Circle, Madison, AL 35758
(H)205-772-7122; (W)205-895-2165
Internet: bfay@hiwaay.net
Southwestern
Dr. Vince Thompson, K5VT
3410 N. 4th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85013
(H)602-840-2653; (W)602-241-1944
Internet: vince@getnet.com
West Gulf
Jim Lane, N5DC
1602 Chestnut Ridge Rd., Kingwood, TX 77339
(H)281-358-0051; (W)281-358-0051; Fax: 281-358-0051
Internet: jim.lane@mcione.com
RAC
Garth Hamilton, VE3HO
PO Box 2641, Niagara Falls, NY 14302
(H)905-892-5660; Fax: 905-892-7758
Internet: garthah@computan.on.ca
CHAIRMAN
Rocky Mountain
Wayne A. Mills, N7NG
PO Box 1945, Jackson, WY 83001
(H)307-733-2670; (W)307-733-3033; Cell Phone: 307-730-8334; Fax: 307-733-3269;
Internet: n7ng@sprynet.com
Board Liaison
Pacific Vice Director, Jim Maxwell, W6CF
PO Box 473, Redwood Estates, CA 95044
(H)408-353-3911
Internet:w6cf@arrl.org
Staff Liaison
Bill Kennamer, K5FUV
225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111
(W)860-594-0270; Fax: 860-594-0259
Internet: bkennamer@arrl.org
Administrative Liaison
Sharon Taratula
225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111
(W) 860-594-0269; Fax: 860-594-0259
Internet: staratula@arrl.org
Report of the DX Advisory Committee reference:
DXCC2000 Program Assessment
At its March meeting, the MSC decided to make several requests of the DXAC. One of these requests deals with an assessment of the DXCC 2000 Program:
"The MSC requests that the DXAC assess DXCC membership opinion on the new DXCC2000 program. A preliminary report is desired for the July 1998 Board meeting, with a final report no later than the January, 1999 Board meeting. This should be handled as a policy issue; that is, DXCC member input should be solicited."
In response, the Chairman charged the committee with the task in [DXAC:907]. Since the preliminary report in July, little discussion has taken place within the committee. Instead (perhaps) the committee has focused on the later issue of increasing the awareness of the DXCC2000 program among DXers (DXAC 98-1).
Reviewing the information presented in July, several DXAC members reported regarding their attempts to assess the reaction to the DXCC 2000 Program. A few DXers have commented about details of the program. Some questioned the addition of six meters to the all band award. Some are concerned about "how long it will take to get to 400 entities." There has been some grumbling about the new rate structure (although this seems to have tapered off in recent months).
By far the common thread in all of the discussion about DXCC 2000 is that relatively few DXers have actually made a serious attempt to familiarize themselves with the new program. The reader is referred to the second appendix (p.12) of the July, 1998 Report to the Board for specific DXAC member inputs.
It is probably fair to say that more DXers are familiar with the new program at the end of 1998 than during the first few months following its announcement. As noted, several very well written articles appeared in QST in the spring of 1998. In 98-1, the MSC asked the DXAC to suggest methods for helping DXers to become more aware of the program. A separate report addressing this topic appears elsewhere in this report. I am confident that as time passes, DXers will become more familiar with the programs and more discussion will take place.
Report of the DX Advisory Committee reference agenda Item 98-1:
Increasing Awareness of the DXCC2000 Program
The DX Advisory Committee (DXAC) has been asked to help identify ways in which the DX community can be made more aware of the new DXCC2000 Program. The DXAC has conducted some discussion of this issue. Prior to presenting the suggestions of the committee, I wish to list some of the efforts which have been made to date.
What has been done:
1) Three very well written articles have appeared in the How's DX column, QST for March, April and May, 1998. These articles spell out the new program in very adequate detail. Number of impressions is the issue; more coverage of the same material seems to be necessary.
2) Numerous presentations have been made to meetings and conventions since the spring of 1998. These meetings include Visalia, New Orleans, Bologna, London, Dallas and Karlsberg, Sweden. Plans are under way to continue with a meeting in Charlotte in March 1999. In some cases, while the program was discussed, the full program was not presented, per se. Magazine articles have been presented in Japan and Belgium. Unfortunately, no DX forum was organized for Dayton in 1998. Hopefully this will be rectified in 1999.
3) The Chairman observes that the general level understanding within the DX community has increased. At the same time, he recognizes that there remains considerable lack of awareness. The bottom line is that additional publicity and presentation is still required to kick-off the new program properly.
Discussions by the DXAC concerning what could be done during 1999 indicate that some or all of the following might be useful.
What can be done in the future:
1) A short feature article in QST, two pages including some graphics; people like pictures. A "Frequently Asked Questions" section would be useful.
2) A more lengthy feature article in the next DXCC Annual is a must. The same FAQ would be appropriate.
3) A PowerPoint presentation which can be distributed on the website and sent to clubs and presented at meetings could be assembled. Equipment is becoming generally available for this new, high-tech medium. It should be received with greater interest than material presented through the use of the usual media.
4) The ARRL/DXCC website should contain a page devoted to the DXCC2000 program. Complete information on awards, rules changes and changes in the field checking program and data entry plans should be highlighted.
Information about the DXCC2000 Program should highlight the new Awards Program, the new Field Representative program and the Rule changes. Particular attention should be paid to the card checking program. This need to be emphasized and started at a relatively high level of use.
Report of the DX Advisory Committee regarding agenda item 98-2:
On the Selection of Field Checkers for the new Field Representative Program.
The DX Advisory Committee (DXAC) has been asked to assist in determining how DXCC Field Representatives (field checkers) will be selected for the new DXCC Field Representative Program. The existing program, while essentially sound, has not lived up to expectations with respect to the number of applications processed and any associated reduction in the costs to the DXCC desk function. It was the opinion of the DXCC2000 Committee that the restrictions on the field checkers limiting the number of entities which were qualified for checking and the number of field checkers required (2) were responsible for the limited utilization of the program. The new program seeks to remedy these problems. The new program as proposed by the DXCC2000 Committee prescribes that only one checker will be required. In addition, field checkers will be allowed to process cards for all entities, and only cards for the 160 meter band will not be eligible for field checking.
The new program will also provide for submitting applications on-line, via the internet. In fact, we understand that a monetary discount will be allowed for applicants which ultilize this form of submission. The DXer will complete an application and a card list via the web. He will print out a list and ask a checker to verify the list through the checking of his cards. The checker will then submit the list with his approval indicated. It is important to note what is required of the Field Checker. The field checker must be able to verify that a card or card entry exists for each claimed entity listed on the card list. He/she must also be able to inspect the cards and determine that there are no alterations apparent. This is all that is required. Any questions regarding whether particular contacts are good, whether the station in question was properly authorized, etc. will be answered at HQ by the DXCC Desk computer.
DXAC members have suggested the following criteria for selecting DXCC field representatives:
1) Not necessarily requiring nominations;
2) Requiring nominations by two clubs;
3) Approval by Section Managers;
4) Appointments by Division Directors;
5) A simple process;
6) Qualify by having "n" countries confirmed (within ten of top);
7) Select interested people;
8) Limit the number of checkers;
9) Use a test for qualification;
10) Require some experience;
11) Expand the checking program to cover all ARRL awards
(It is understood tht some of these suggestions go beyond the scope of the 98-2 request)
Given the parameters above, it seems that the important characteristics of a DXCC Field Representative revolve around a desire to perform a service for DXers in a dedicated manner. Since there will be considerable incentive for DXers to utilize the new field checking process and since there would be only enough reps to do the job required, the field reps will be busy. The primary requisite for a DXCC Field Representative is that he/she be competent and of high integrity. An additional prerequisite might be a demonstrated interest in the DXCC program. This might be assumed by virtue of expressed interest, but to mollify those who feel that DXCC experience is necessary, at least a basic DXCC should be required. This, of course, also requires League membership, which should be mandatory. I find no rationale for requiring Honor Roll status or 300 Entities confirmed, etc. It impresses, but it isn't relevant to the job.
To locate such people and be confident that these requirements are met, candidates should, if possible, be known to those involved in the recruiting process. Some members of the DXAC have suggested that there need not be a single entry point for potential reps. I believe this is correct. In addition, it has been suggested that "nominations" in whatever form, should be funneled to the Section Managers, and directed to the Division Directors. I believe this method of selection will maximize the personal knowledge of the candidates. It has also been suggested that the Field Representatives be appointed by the various Directors (perhaps with veto power by the DXCC Desk) rather than by the President.
The qualifications of the Field Representative nominees should be determined by open book examination. In effect, of course, this is presenting the details of the process to the prospective checkers, and requiring them to study the rules and procedures. This technique is being used successfully by the ARRL VEC simply to assure that the appropriate text relating to procedures has been studied. This would be the sole extent of the qualifying procedure. It is a simple process for a simple job. The test booklet would be retained by the field checker as a reference.
Summary:
The selection process for the existing program looks like this:
Our recommendation looks something like this:
Renewal includes requirement for checking a minimum number of applications during the previous year.
The objective of revising the QSL card checking program is to create a means by which more DXers will utilize this mode of application. Reducing the number of checkers required to one and increasing the list of entities which may be checked will enhance off-site applications. An important consideration is to make sure that there are checkers located where needed. Increasing the size of the potential pool by allowing SMs as well as clubs and other individuals to nominate participants will help insure adequate distribution of card checkers.
