Hi Marty, After checking with Dave Patton, here are my responses to your questions. 1) A QSL card-based application costs $7.50 more if you let HQ staff manually enter the data for up to 101 contacts, about 7-1/2 cents per contact for a new application, yet that applicant is charged 15 cents per additional contact beyond the 101. Why the discrepancy? I'm not sure where you see a discrepancy -- extra QSOs for staff data entry cost $.07 more than for a digital application. 2) Since there is no manual input or cross-checking for LoTW confirmations (as far as I know), why do we charge anything for excess contacts in LoTW applications? It would seem we do no more work for 120 credits than we do for 100. There are no "included QSOs" in a LoTW app. The QSO fee in that case is for the use of LoTW (as a substitute for having to pay the postage and other costs to obtain a card) rather than for data entry. 3) Do we know what each application mode actually costs us to process? If so, what are those costs? I ask this because DXCC fees are over $1/4 million of our annual revenues, but I have no idea - even being on A&F - what we might be making or losing on the program. If we want the fee structure to match whatever our intentions for the program are (e.g., pay for itself? cover marginal processing costs?), now is the time to do that rather than after we have announced the new fee structure. We know how much time it takes to process different kinds of applications, and therefore how much it costs for personnel and other direct costs. In principle it has been my goal for the awards program fees for members to cover the direct costs, with the overhead costs attributable to dues (hence the higher fees for non-members). 4) The announcement says that, under LoTW, "each user can see which records are stored in the DXCC system for all of his/her entities on each band and mode." Band and mode detail for pre-computerized legacy credits are not, in fact, available in LoTW until and unless the applicant resubmits cards for those pre-computer contacts. What fees, if any, will apply and what process(es) would be utilized by an applicant wishing to bring his or her old DXCC credits up to date in LoTW? The announcement and chart appear silent on this issue. (I would think that, for applicants doing their own data entry using the on-line application model, the cost would be zero or nominal, assuming no award is being issued in conjunction with such a records update, since we're not charging for either staff or field card-checking per se, but I guess that should be up for discussion.) The user can see whatever is stored in the DXCC system, which in the case of old pre-computer credits may be just the ADIF country code. The only way to update those entries is for the applicant to resubmit the cards. Digital applications still require examination of the cards (either by a card checker or at HQ) and possible correction/editing of the entry. 5) The On-Line application is "primarily intended to be used in conjunction with Field Checkers", but sending cards to HQ is not ruled out. Can an on-line applicant send cards to HQ or not?. Also, don't we want some incentive (other than saving some postage) for an on-line applicant to seek out a field checker rather than to have paid staff check the cards? Along that line, do we want to incent all-paper applications to go through volunteer field checkers rather than to paid staff? Yes, we will accept cards sent in to HQ. The main incentive for using card checkers is that the cards don't leave your possession. The fee structure is already more complicated than we would like. 6) Reference to a fee for "your DXCC matrix" (presumably a printout) makes me wonder whether the source of that matrix will be the old system or LoTW. If the former, does this mean we're maintaining the old system for all DXCC participants who are not registered LoTW users? Yes, for now. 7) Could some of the wording in the announcement use a more positive spin? For example, "There will no longer be a free, printed DXCC Yearbook. A free, digital version will be available, as well as a printed version at additional cost. " could be reworded as follows: "The free DXCC yearbook will now be made available electronically for you to download and print. For those who still want a League-printed yearbook, it will still be available at a modest cost" (Actually, we should specify that cost in the announcement; there's no major uncertainty as to what it will cost, is there?) As another example, "There will no longer be a "First DXCC" pricing break. " could read "The fee for initial DXCC awards will now be the same as for other applications". Maybe we should let our copywriters in Advertising take a look at the announcement. Thanks for those suggestions. We'll take them on board. 73, Dave K1ZZ