Re: arrl is accepting eqsls for dxcc credit
I guess I'm not sure what Bill means by "quoted out of context." Both the email posting on the TARA group and the page on the eQSL web site APPEAR to be complete copies of Bill's email. Ernest's announcement is admittedly abbreviated, but I believe it has the same information regarding the card itself. (It must be a printed card, created by eQSL, not the recipient, and sent to the recipient as a printed card, such as by mail.)
The only thing missing is the statement regarding "checking the log to verify the contact." Here's where maybe it gets a little sticky. I believe Bill's intent here is that the "QSL Manager" (in this case eQSL) compares the QSO information submitted by me to the logs of the DX station, and only creates a QSL when that information matches. That is the typical routine for a manager. But there are some cases where QSL managers simply QSL all contacts whether requested or not. In this case, there is no "log comparison," as the manager simply QSLs based on his own information. The latter is what eQSL does. If a DX station sends me an eQSL, I can print and receive that card without formally confirming it. And there is no indication of that on the eQSL card.
The spin that the eQSL folks are putting on it, based on Bill's email, is that in order for the card to be valid for DXCC, **I** must compare the card to **my** log and verify the contact. Typically I will then send a confirming reply via the eQSL system. And once I make this comparison, and then have eQSL print and mail a card, the card will be valid for DXCC.
Each person should read Bill's email in its entirety, and compare it to the process described by eQSL, and form their own opinion on whether Bill is being misinterpreted.
Unfortunately this thing is still spinning out of hand. Bill's email's appear to be inconsistent, when I don't believe he intends them to be that way. At this point, I believe two things need to happen:
1. There needs to be some sort of formal announcement from the ARRL regarding this.
2. The ARRL needs to agree that the steps laid out on the eQSL site are correct, and that cards created that way will be accepted.
So far I think Bill has stated a process, and eQSL has interpreted it. (Correctly, in my opinion.) But Bill is not the final authority on DXCC, and until they speak formally, this issue is not settled. I hope they are working on this.