[Dx4win] ARRL eQSL policy

[Pete Smith]

At 06:17 PM 12/31/02 +0000, W0YG Charlie Summers wrote:
>...
>Here is the current policy just received from Bill Moore at the DXCC Desk:
>                                         ********************************
>
>Recent discussion regarding the QSL service offered by eQSL.ccTM suggests
>that there is some confusion about ARRL QSL policy. Simply put, there has
>been no change in League policy regarding eQSLs. ARRL does not accept QSLs
>that have been transmitted to the recipient via electronic means for its
>awards.

Does this mean that they would accept QSLs mailed to a user by eQSL that 
met the other requirements below?

>First, we expect that a QSL manager will seek permission from operators for
>whom QSLs are handled. We do not accept cards from unauthorized QSL managers
>for DXCC credit. Such an authorization must be a pro-active choice of the DX
>station rather than an "opt out," default authority given to a bulk mailer.


This would be easy for eQSL to obtain, with uploading of QSO date, it would 
appear.



>Second, since most operators requesting QSLs expect that the returned cards
>will correctly reflect the actual QSO data, we expect that a QSL manager
>will do the checking required to assure that only real contacts are
>verified. We all know that raw logs contain many errors. A recent sample
>from a bulk-mailing QSL service show three out of five QSOs confirmed were
>not in the recipient's log. This is unacceptable. Often, these errors are
>only detected when incoming cards are compared to the log. The distribution
>of QSLs, without any checking of the information contained on the incoming
>cards, is poor QSLing practice, and may lead to blanket rejection of all QSL
>cards from the station/manager in question.


This, too, could be done by eQSL using standard database techniques, sort 
of like Logbook of the world, in fact.



>Also, we expect to be able to identify cards as authentic. Many cards are
>printed on home printers, and in many cases, the data is printed on card
>stock at the same time. Although this is technically acceptable, the process
>often makes verification difficult. In certain cases we may reject these
>cards. Cards should be personalized or otherwise made unique through the use
>of a stamp or other personal mark (signature or initials) across a label
>boundary.


Presumably they are less than stringent about this, except in the case of 
rarer DX.  I have not done this "personalization" on something over 20,000 
QSLs prepared using DX4WIN's label printing, and have never had any 
indications of my QSLs being questioned.



>Finally, the concept of obtaining a QSL card at no charge is a long-held
>tradition in ham radio and DXCC, and we endeavor to continue this tradition.
>QSL managers handling cards for DXCC submission must make cards available if
>adequate postage is supplied. Postage can be supplied by sending IRCs,
>direct funds, or SASEs. We consider it an ethics violation if cards can only
>be claimed through payment of a fee, and thus we will not accept cards for
>DXCC credit for which a fixed charge is made. A number of well-known
>DXpeditioners and QSL managers do not accept bureau cards, but we are not
>aware of any cases where a card will not be forthcoming if adequate postage
>is provided.

This could be a sticking point, since I assume eQSL would want to be 
compensated for their time and infrastructure investment.  If they met the 
other requirements, though, and mailed QSLs from a lot of stations to a 
requester for a per-card cost that was less than the one-at-a-time per-card 
postage, it's hard to see how the ARRL could squawk.  I wonder whether, at 
that time, they wouldn't begin to question eQSL's security arrangements for 
log submissions.

Maybe eQSL will give it a try and see what happens.  But for the moment, I 
agree with Charlie, ARRL would only have accepted an 
electronically-transmitted EQSL as an oversight.

73, Pete N4ZR
Happy Holidays