Jim, we have never accepted 60 meter QSOs for contest credit. I can't imagine that we ever would, given that we don't for 30, 17 and 12 meters, and I don't think it's an issue in anyone's mind.
 
It has been pretty much a moot point to now with regard to DXCC, but N8S had the potential to change that. The caution we put out seems to have been pretty well received.
 
The rules already prohibit 60-meter QSOs for the Challenge. I'm sure there are people collecting countries on 60 meters. It's human nature. However, the DXCC program, being international, should not grant DXCC Challenge credit for 60 meter QSOs until such time as there is an international allocation. There is no prohibition on basic DXCC credit -- that is, credit toward mixed or phone DXCC on the basis of a legal 60-meter QSO -- nor does there need to be since few people will work a country on 60 meters that they don't already have on another band.
 
Worked All States is another matter. We have already had an inquiry as to whether we would issue a 60-meter WAS. I have asked Dave Patton to refer it to P&SC. There are pros and cons, but WAS is unlikely to get out of hand the way chasing countries would. It would be more likely to evolve into a controlled net like the various 75-meter WAS nets that have existed.
 
73,
Dave K1ZZ

 
From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org]
Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 8:52 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX]

I, too, received a forward of the 60M proposal from one of my members.  I
believe there is merit in the basic reco.  I think he goes overboard in
wanting a firm statement that we will NEVER accept 60 M QSOs for
awards/contests, but this is a detail that could be worked.  A simple
statement that 60M QSOs do not count for DXCC and contests should be enough.
Assuming we are successful at getting a true 60M "band" in the future, this
position could be reviewed.

Not being on 60, I've not paid much attention to the band.  Have we accepted
Qs for DXCC and contest credit in the past?  If we have, we would need to
figure out how to handle these.

Jim

Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
ARRL Great Lakes Division
5065 Bethany Rd.
Mason, OH 45040
E-mail:  k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142
ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is!
Members - The Reason ARRL Is!


-----Original Message-----
From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:05 AM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX]

Hi Folks,

Thought I would forward Ken's note as I had the same feelings when Dave
put out the caution on 60 meters earlier in the week.  I'm afraid that if
we don't take action we may lose a very valuable band for EmComm.

Coy
--
Coy Day, N5OK
20685 SW 29
Union City, OK 73090
405-483-5632


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: 60M DX
From:    "Ken - K5KC" <k5kc@suddenlink.net>
Date:    Fri, April 6, 2007 09:50
To:      n5ok@arrl.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Coy,

I'm actually writing on "business" (hi)!!

I've read at least two warnings / concerns from ARRL about DXing on 60M.
It all makes perfect sense - and I agree with it - BUT, the request (in my
opinion) is without teeth, will likely influence only minor behavior
changes, and has the potential to REALLY upset some DXers.  Let me explain
and make a suggestion.

First, the suggestion:  ARRL should decree right away that 60M is NOT a DX
band and, as such, QSOs made will NOT now or in the future count toward
the Challenge or 60M DXCC or anything else from ARRL.  IF AND WHEN THIS
CHANGES, ARRL will notify us all that only as of some future date will
QSOs count toward the ARRL DX program.

Now, the explanation.  You have surely noticed that a few heavyweight
DXers have begun to show up in the spots on 60.  And, of course, there are
many DX commoners also chasing DX there.  THEY ARE COVERING THEIR TAILS so
they are not behind if and when 60M is added to the Challenge list.  I
cannot blame them.  If left alone, they will continue to (carefully) chase
DX and rack up the countries.  Suppose some ham DOES take ARRL's request
seriously and does NOT use 60M for DXing.  They are going to be madder
than $%^&* if ARRL later does allow DX QSOs being made now to count.  If
that were to happen, I could not blame them for being mad.

Since I am writing to you in your capacity as a BoD member, feel free to
send this input along to whomever - if you think it represents a rational
line of thought.

73 Ken K5KC