Brian, I agree. Make it so! ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Brian Mileshosky Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:27 PM To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:24258] April 14 PSC meeting minutes Colleagues – For your situational awareness, please find attached UNAPPROVED minutes from PSC's April 14 meeting, prepared by Dan Henderson. They will be approved at our next (TBD) meeting. Something to bring to your attention. At our meeting in January, the full Board approved a rule to impose a transmitter and receiver co-location limitation intended to disallow (by honest people, anyway) the use of remote receivers if they were further than 500 meters away from the transmitter. The approved rule read as such: "9. All stations must be contacted from the same DXCC entity. The location of any station shall be defined as the location of the transmitter. For the purpose of DXCC credit, all transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle, excluding antennas. QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are allowed to be used for DXCC credit." Staff and PSC has received questions and feedback from DXers concerned that the third sentence of Rule 9 (that beginning with "For the purpose..."), if read literally, disallows DXCC credit for any QSOs made from anywhere outside of a 500 meter circle, whether using remote control, or from previous or additional QTHs. Obviously that was not the intention of the rule at all. During its April meeting, PSC decided to tweak/clarify Rule 9 to remove any further unintended abiguity/confusion/angst. The revised language is found in the meeting minutes, which leads me to this question: PSC does not believe the intended fit, form, or function of Rule 9 was altered by its tweak. Would anyone object to giving staff a green light to apply this clarification to the official rules as-is, as opposed to waiting until July to approve it as a full Board? Thanks and 73, Brian N5ZGT