| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 19.08.20 16:46l 1177 Lines 48695 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB15341
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V15 341
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<IR1UAW<IQ5KG<IK1NHL<CX2SA
Sent: 200819/1439Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:37672 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB15341
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
(Bruce Perens)
2. Re: Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
(Michelle Thompson)
3. Re: Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
(Rich Gopstein)
4. Re: Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
(Joseph Armbruster)
5. Re: Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
(Michelle Thompson)
6. Re: Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
(Joseph Armbruster)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 21:17:43 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
To: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
Cc: AMSAT BB <AMSAT-BB@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be
Free of ITAR
Message-ID:
<CAK2MWOuRYb1z5eA-GC0zNW2NocnbyoMV9yHz7-_W_8Z9kaz87Q@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:08 PM Michelle Thompson <
mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
> I don?t want to dump the application on the internet without a clear ok
> from the firm. I?ll ask (again).
>
It's important to ask the lawyers the right question. Tell them we want to
be able to assure people that this is about the Open Source policy, not
simply that DoD finds nothing to worry about in our technical description
of the satellite. Let them figure out the best way to do that.
It would be a shame for AMSAT to choose not to use this strategy, but
mostly for AMSAT. ORI will be using it, and I think it will catch on in
colleges.
Thanks
Bruce
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 21:34:17 -0700
From: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
To: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
Cc: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be
Free of ITAR
Message-ID:
<CACvjz2UhA6QSEBVMzcbd=ZntG0izYdev1B=AsuKxP7Z7JpL-NA@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Understand, and will do as soon as it can be scheduled.
Thanks so much for all the help.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 21:17 Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:08 PM Michelle Thompson <
> mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
>
>> I don?t want to dump the application on the internet without a clear ok
>> from the firm. I?ll ask (again).
>>
>
> It's important to ask the lawyers the right question. Tell them we want to
> be able to assure people that this is about the Open Source policy, not
> simply that DoD finds nothing to worry about in our technical description
> of the satellite. Let them figure out the best way to do that.
>
> It would be a shame for AMSAT to choose not to use this strategy, but
> mostly for AMSAT. ORI will be using it, and I think it will catch on in
> colleges.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:31:01 -0400
From: Rich Gopstein <rich@????????????.???>
To: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
Cc: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be
Free of ITAR
Message-ID:
<CANsNeaqieQ877PJ2yjEaVDXy13e=xe-BeTBARGwtvm0LV0FJFA@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Michelle,
It would be particularly helpful to ask the lawyers to clarify whether this
finding can be directly applied to other open source amateur radio
satellite projects. Posting their answer would help us determine whether
your result is applicable to our projects.
Rich, KD2CQ
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:34 AM Michelle Thompson <
mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
> Understand, and will do as soon as it can be scheduled.
>
> Thanks so much for all the help.
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 21:17 Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:08 PM Michelle Thompson <
>> mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>>> I don?t want to dump the application on the internet without a clear ok
>>> from the firm. I?ll ask (again).
>>>
>>
>> It's important to ask the lawyers the right question. Tell them we want
>> to be able to assure people that this is about the Open Source policy, not
>> simply that DoD finds nothing to worry about in our technical description
>> of the satellite. Let them figure out the best way to do that.
>>
>> It would be a shame for AMSAT to choose not to use this strategy, but
>> mostly for AMSAT. ORI will be using it, and I think it will catch on in
>> colleges.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 09:26:59 -0400
From: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
To: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
Cc: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be
Free of ITAR
Message-ID:
<CADkz4c-VK-+XATBQ-EexkfnQLm81RxhQkd_AwYCudiMHjT1gCA@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Michelle,
Standby. The community has absolutely no reason, whatsoever to trust any
guidelines your group is publishing, unless the community is given direct
insight into the request itself and all direct communications with the
DDTC, so that the context and realities of the determination can be
validated. What i'm asking for here is not inappropriate, given the
history, context or claims being made.
This, "Just trust what we say we did", is Not Transparent and does not
instill confidence in anyone about what is going on. I do, on the other
hand, have Hope, that the claims being made are supported.
I will say though, I actually laughed out loud when I read "Information
contained in CJ requests is not usually made public. The law firm would not
file it unless it was presented to the State Department as private and
confidential." Because, C'mon.. noone in their right mind is going to read
that and say "oh yeah!" and agree that they should just turn their brains
off to the actual request.
With respects to the first sentence, the reality is that most companies
dealing with the DDTC are exporting defense articles and services. As a
result, there's usually a contractual need (and could be a real life/death
reason) to keep the communications with the DDTC, confidential. Because
the intent here is not to manufacture/export defense articles or services,
there should be no harm in the request being made public. I mean, I
believe everyone on the -bb would unanimously Want to see it. On the
second sentence, I have an attorney on retainer for my business and I could
easily go to them and say "All communications between parties A and B for
this effort will be placed into the public domain, in support of an
outreach effort going on with this charity, so treat it that way". And,
that's what would happen, because, that's what I would be paying them to
do. In addition, I am free to take my legal business elsewhere if-need-be
and I do not have to beg, plead, or pay for any release. Sometimes, having
a second set of legal eyes on legal work products is a good thing. I would
not have the firm file on my behalf with the DDTC, because there's really
no need. That's giving them more power and responsibility in the process
than they actually need. I'd use them more as support personnel /
consultants on an as-needed basis, vs the directors of the effort that you
now have to beg for a release (of your own information...) This sounds
like a disaster.
The contents of a CJ request is private and confidential if and only if the
submitting party treats it that way.
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:23 PM Michelle Thompson <
mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
> Yes, Joseph, it?s amazing news and It is just as good as advertised.
>
> The result is of enormous and direct benefit to AMSAT.
>
> AMSAT was asked to join the request. I sent a paper letter, wrote the
> board, brought it up during the 2019 annual board meeting, and published an
> open letter. I did all I could to enable the full participation of the one
> organization that stands to benefit the most from this determination.
>
> But, the men you voted for did not respond, at all.
>
> It took a year of very hard work. It?s a gift to the community. It can
> restore free and open international collaboration.
>
> That?s it. There?s no tricks or gotchas. It is what it is claimed to be.
>
> I would have done the same work and raised the same money if AMSAT had
> wanted their name on it. I would be just as proud and would be saying the
> same things. When work needs to be done, it needs to be done.
>
> Information contained in CJ requests is not usually made public. The law
> firm would not file it unless it was presented to the State Department as
> private and confidential. This advice was because virtually all requests
> are for proprietary programs and products. Sticking out in this regard, by
> doing something they advised strongly against, would not work to our
> advantage in any way. I want to win for open source, not die on the wrong
> hill.
>
> Additionally, the law firm does not want their work products or email
> correspondence published. We will honor that. We want to work with them
> again. They were fantastic, recommended by EFF, and 100% supportive of open
> source.
>
> Fortunately, *everything* that went into the request is already public
> information. All our designs, details, policies, procedures, definitions,
> diagrams, and code are available to the general public free of charge,
> today. That?s the primary reason it succeeded. We already follow the law
> with respect to public domain carve outs and publishing requirements. The
> final determination shows the value of this approach.
>
> AMSAT can do this too. There is literally no reason not to. This is the
> game changer people have been waiting for.
>
> *All* of what *anyone* will need to know to take full advantage will be
> published in a set of implementation guidelines.
>
> This is the single best risk reduction for AMSAT volunteers that exists in
> US law. It is the gold standard. We have access as a community to this
> result because a team of very committed and competent people made it happen
> and are now going to make it easy to use.
>
> Want to contribute to the guidelines? Participants are welcome.
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 18:01 Joseph Armbruster <
> josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
>
>> Michelle,
>>
>> This is quite interesting, indeed! However, from your press release, I
>> really have no clue what "Information and Software for a Digital Microwave
>> Broadband Communications System for Space and Terrestrial Amateur Radio
>> Use", means (in terms of the legalese, definitions and proper nouns used,
>> etc...). Depending on how they were defined, the determination may or may
>> not be directly relevant to AMSAT or anyone else for that matter... And
>> just to be clear, i'm not trying to be a spoiler here or anything, this
>> could be really amazing news, or nothing more than a null determination
>> that sounds great in a headline but really means nothing. I think Everyone
>> would welcome relaxed ITAR constraints on AMSAT engineers, in any
>> way, shape or form... That being said, this begs the question, is the Form
>> DS-4076 and all supplemental materials, along with all written
>> communications with the DOS/DDTC concerning this matter, being made
>> public? I think this would be absolutely necessary for anyone on the list
>> to get excited about this, in any way, shape or form. I looked on the ORI
>> website and couldn't find anything around Feb 2020 (per the date the
>> indicated submission was made per the AUG11 reply from the DDTC).
>>
>> Although, I am not a particular fan of ORI so-far, which is why I voted
>> for Hammond, Paige, Stoetzer....
>>
>> I do commend any individual or entity that is able and willing to deal
>> with the DOS or DDTC. It takes a lot of time and $. At one point, my
>> business helped develop parts of a research UAV for a foreign military on a
>> high-altitude balloon, which included a wireless network. One export
>> permit took over six months, with back-and-forths with questions and
>> clarifications, questions and clarifications, more questions and
>> clarifications... on and on and on... Just because they say you can
>> produce Information and Software for a widget (however those are defined),
>> it doesn't necessarily mean you can actually get a permit to ship the
>> hardware with the software on it, anywhere. Because the 'Information and
>> Software' (however defined), may not govern the hardware used. In my case,
>> there were special accelerometers and gyros, that you don't purchase
>> without providing a lot of information. So, no matter what software was
>> written to drive them, if you shipped them out of the country without a
>> permit, look out! I remember finally getting my first export permit and
>> shipping label and putting it on the box and sending some hardware out. It
>> was just a sticky label that went on a box, but wow, it wasn't easy.
>>
>> It sure would be nice if ITAR was less of an issue but the devil's really
>> in the details here...
>>
>> Joseph Armbruster
>> KJ4JIO
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michelle Thompson via AMSAT-BB <
>> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>>> Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
>>>
>>>
>>>
https://openresearch.institute/2020/08/18/cj-determination-open-source-satelli
te-work-is-free-of-itar/
>>>
>>> The United States Department of State has ruled favorably on Open
>>> Research
>>> Institute's commodity jurisdiction request, finding that specified
>>> ?Information and Software for a Digital Microwave Broadband
>>> Communications
>>> System for Space and Terrestrial Amateur Radio Use? is definitely not
>>> subject to State Department jurisdiction under ITAR, the International
>>> Traffic in Arms Regulations. This is an important step toward reducing
>>> the
>>> burden of regulations restricting international cooperation on amateur
>>> satellite projects, which have impeded engineering work by amateurs in
>>> the
>>> United States for decades.
>>>
>>> Export regulations divide both technical information and actual hardware
>>> into three categories. The most heavily restricted technologies fall
>>> under
>>> ITAR, which is administered by the State Department. Technologies subject
>>> to more routine restrictions fall under EAR, the Export Administration
>>> Regulations, administered by the Department of Commerce. Technologies
>>> that
>>> are not subject to either set of regulations are not restricted for
>>> export.
>>>
>>> On 20 February 2020, Open Research Institute (ORI) filed a Commodity
>>> Jurisdiction (CJ) Request with the US State Department, seeking to
>>> establish that key technologies for amateur radio are not subject to
>>> State
>>> Department jurisdiction. ?Information and Software for a Digital
>>> Microwave
>>> Broadband Communications System for Space and Terrestrial Amateur Radio
>>> Use? was assigned the case number CJ0003120. On 11 August 2020, the case
>>> received a successful final determination: the technology is not subject
>>> to
>>> State Department jurisdiction. This is the best possible outcome of a CJ
>>> request.
>>>
>>> The Final Determination letter can be found at
>>>
>>>
https://openresearch.institute/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/08/CJ-0003120-
Final-Determination-Letter.pdf
>>> .
>>>
>>> Under this determination, the technologies are subject to the EAR. The
>>> next
>>> step is to submit a classification request to the Commerce Department.
>>> ORI
>>> anticipates that the Commerce Department will find that these
>>> technologies
>>> are unrestricted under the carve-out for open source in the EAR.
>>>
>>> Open Research Institute (ORI) is a non-profit research and development
>>> organization which provides all of its work to the general public under
>>> the
>>> principles of Open Source and Open Access to Research.
>>>
>>> This work was accomplished by a team of dedicated and competent open
>>> source
>>> volunteers. The effort was initiated by Bruce Perens K6BP and lead by
>>> Michelle Thompson W5NYV.
>>>
>>> Open Research Institute developed the ideas behind the Commodity
>>> Jurisdiction request, hired Thomsen and Burke LLP (https://t-b.com/) for
>>> expert legal advice, organized the revisions of the document, and invited
>>> organizations and individuals with amateur satellite service interests to
>>> join or support the request.
>>>
>>> ORI thanks Libre Space Foundation and Dr. Daniel Estevez for providing
>>> their subject matter expertise and written testimony, and JAMSAT for
>>> helpful encouragement and support.
>>>
>>> The legal costs were fully reimbursed with a generous grant from Amateur
>>> Radio Digital Communications (ARDC). See
>>> https://www.ampr.org/grants/grant-open-research-institute/.
>>>
>>> ARDC and ORI share a vision of clearly establishing open source as the
>>> best
>>> and safest way to accomplish technical volunteer work in amateur radio.
>>> This final determination letter provides solid support for that vision.
>>> The
>>> determination enables the development of implementation guidelines that
>>> will allow free international collaboration.
>>>
>>> This clears the path for a number of interesting projects facilitating
>>> new
>>> methods for terrestrial and satellite communications, opening the door to
>>> robust global digital amateur communications.
>>>
>>> Questions and inquiries to ori@????????????.?????????
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
>>> Opinions expressed
>>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
>>> AMSAT-NA.
>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>>> program!
>>> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>>
>> --
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
> "Potestatem obscuri lateris nescis."
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:02:19 -0700
From: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
To: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
Cc: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be
Free of ITAR
Message-ID:
<CACvjz2URcX=hdNmtFfb55J7GrsqLDkwzKp1HM=bXWm3+7vYvAA@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Again, all information used in the request is already public.
Again, the policies used to make the succesful request are also already
public and in use.
You are spilling a lot of ink asking for things to be shared that have
already been shared. I've already said I will ask the firm what can be
released.
The final determination is of enormous benefit to AMSAT and many other
organizations. The request was deliberately designed that way, and it
worked.
Time to put it to work for AMSAT.
And celebrate! :+)
-Michelle W5NYV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 06:24 Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
wrote:
> Michelle,
>
>
> Standby. The community has absolutely no reason, whatsoever to trust any
> guidelines your group is publishing, unless the community is given direct
> insight into the request itself and all direct communications with the
> DDTC, so that the context and realities of the determination can be
> validated. What i'm asking for here is not inappropriate, given the
> history, context or claims being made.
>
>
> This, "Just trust what we say we did", is Not Transparent and does not
> instill confidence in anyone about what is going on. I do, on the other
> hand, have Hope, that the claims being made are supported.
>
>
> I will say though, I actually laughed out loud when I read "Information
> contained in CJ requests is not usually made public. The law firm would not
> file it unless it was presented to the State Department as private and
> confidential." Because, C'mon.. noone in their right mind is going to
> read that and say "oh yeah!" and agree that they should just turn their
> brains off to the actual request.
>
>
> With respects to the first sentence, the reality is that most companies
> dealing with the DDTC are exporting defense articles and services. As a
> result, there's usually a contractual need (and could be a real life/death
> reason) to keep the communications with the DDTC, confidential. Because
> the intent here is not to manufacture/export defense articles or services,
> there should be no harm in the request being made public. I mean, I
> believe everyone on the -bb would unanimously Want to see it. On the
> second sentence, I have an attorney on retainer for my business and I could
> easily go to them and say "All communications between parties A and B for
> this effort will be placed into the public domain, in support of an
> outreach effort going on with this charity, so treat it that way". And,
> that's what would happen, because, that's what I would be paying them to
> do. In addition, I am free to take my legal business elsewhere if-need-be
> and I do not have to beg, plead, or pay for any release. Sometimes, having
> a second set of legal eyes on legal work products is a good thing. I would
> not have the firm file on my behalf with the DDTC, because there's really
> no need. That's giving them more power and responsibility in the process
> than they actually need. I'd use them more as support personnel /
> consultants on an as-needed basis, vs the directors of the effort that you
> now have to beg for a release (of your own information...) This sounds
> like a disaster.
>
>
> The contents of a CJ request is private and confidential if and only if
> the submitting party treats it that way.
>
>
> Joseph Armbruster
>
> KJ4JIO
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:23 PM Michelle Thompson <
> mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
>
>> Yes, Joseph, it?s amazing news and It is just as good as advertised.
>>
>> The result is of enormous and direct benefit to AMSAT.
>>
>> AMSAT was asked to join the request. I sent a paper letter, wrote the
>> board, brought it up during the 2019 annual board meeting, and published an
>> open letter. I did all I could to enable the full participation of the one
>> organization that stands to benefit the most from this determination.
>>
>> But, the men you voted for did not respond, at all.
>>
>> It took a year of very hard work. It?s a gift to the community. It can
>> restore free and open international collaboration.
>>
>> That?s it. There?s no tricks or gotchas. It is what it is claimed to be.
>>
>> I would have done the same work and raised the same money if AMSAT had
>> wanted their name on it. I would be just as proud and would be saying the
>> same things. When work needs to be done, it needs to be done.
>>
>> Information contained in CJ requests is not usually made public. The law
>> firm would not file it unless it was presented to the State Department as
>> private and confidential. This advice was because virtually all requests
>> are for proprietary programs and products. Sticking out in this regard, by
>> doing something they advised strongly against, would not work to our
>> advantage in any way. I want to win for open source, not die on the wrong
>> hill.
>>
>> Additionally, the law firm does not want their work products or email
>> correspondence published. We will honor that. We want to work with them
>> again. They were fantastic, recommended by EFF, and 100% supportive of open
>> source.
>>
>> Fortunately, *everything* that went into the request is already public
>> information. All our designs, details, policies, procedures, definitions,
>> diagrams, and code are available to the general public free of charge,
>> today. That?s the primary reason it succeeded. We already follow the law
>> with respect to public domain carve outs and publishing requirements. The
>> final determination shows the value of this approach.
>>
>> AMSAT can do this too. There is literally no reason not to. This is the
>> game changer people have been waiting for.
>>
>> *All* of what *anyone* will need to know to take full advantage will be
>> published in a set of implementation guidelines.
>>
>> This is the single best risk reduction for AMSAT volunteers that exists
>> in US law. It is the gold standard. We have access as a community to this
>> result because a team of very committed and competent people made it happen
>> and are now going to make it easy to use.
>>
>> Want to contribute to the guidelines? Participants are welcome.
>>
>> -Michelle W5NYV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 18:01 Joseph Armbruster <
>> josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>>> Michelle,
>>>
>>> This is quite interesting, indeed! However, from your press release, I
>>> really have no clue what "Information and Software for a Digital Microwave
>>> Broadband Communications System for Space and Terrestrial Amateur Radio
>>> Use", means (in terms of the legalese, definitions and proper nouns used,
>>> etc...). Depending on how they were defined, the determination may or may
>>> not be directly relevant to AMSAT or anyone else for that matter... And
>>> just to be clear, i'm not trying to be a spoiler here or anything, this
>>> could be really amazing news, or nothing more than a null determination
>>> that sounds great in a headline but really means nothing. I think
Everyone
>>> would welcome relaxed ITAR constraints on AMSAT engineers, in any
>>> way, shape or form... That being said, this begs the question, is the
Form
>>> DS-4076 and all supplemental materials, along with all written
>>> communications with the DOS/DDTC concerning this matter, being made
>>> public? I think this would be absolutely necessary for anyone on the list
>>> to get excited about this, in any way, shape or form. I looked on the ORI
>>> website and couldn't find anything around Feb 2020 (per the date the
>>> indicated submission was made per the AUG11 reply from the DDTC).
>>>
>>> Although, I am not a particular fan of ORI so-far, which is why I voted
>>> for Hammond, Paige, Stoetzer....
>>>
>>> I do commend any individual or entity that is able and willing to deal
>>> with the DOS or DDTC. It takes a lot of time and $. At one point, my
>>> business helped develop parts of a research UAV for a foreign military
on a
>>> high-altitude balloon, which included a wireless network. One export
>>> permit took over six months, with back-and-forths with questions and
>>> clarifications, questions and clarifications, more questions and
>>> clarifications... on and on and on... Just because they say you can
>>> produce Information and Software for a widget (however those are defined),
>>> it doesn't necessarily mean you can actually get a permit to ship the
>>> hardware with the software on it, anywhere. Because the 'Information and
>>> Software' (however defined), may not govern the hardware used. In my
case,
>>> there were special accelerometers and gyros, that you don't purchase
>>> without providing a lot of information. So, no matter what software was
>>> written to drive them, if you shipped them out of the country without a
>>> permit, look out! I remember finally getting my first export permit and
>>> shipping label and putting it on the box and sending some hardware out.
It
>>> was just a sticky label that went on a box, but wow, it wasn't easy.
>>>
>>> It sure would be nice if ITAR was less of an issue but the devil's
>>> really in the details here...
>>>
>>> Joseph Armbruster
>>> KJ4JIO
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michelle Thompson via AMSAT-BB <
>>> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
https://openresearch.institute/2020/08/18/cj-determination-open-source-satelli
te-work-is-free-of-itar/
>>>>
>>>> The United States Department of State has ruled favorably on Open
>>>> Research
>>>> Institute's commodity jurisdiction request, finding that specified
>>>> ?Information and Software for a Digital Microwave Broadband
>>>> Communications
>>>> System for Space and Terrestrial Amateur Radio Use? is definitely not
>>>> subject to State Department jurisdiction under ITAR, the International
>>>> Traffic in Arms Regulations. This is an important step toward reducing
>>>> the
>>>> burden of regulations restricting international cooperation on amateur
>>>> satellite projects, which have impeded engineering work by amateurs in
>>>> the
>>>> United States for decades.
>>>>
>>>> Export regulations divide both technical information and actual hardware
>>>> into three categories. The most heavily restricted technologies fall
>>>> under
>>>> ITAR, which is administered by the State Department. Technologies
>>>> subject
>>>> to more routine restrictions fall under EAR, the Export Administration
>>>> Regulations, administered by the Department of Commerce. Technologies
>>>> that
>>>> are not subject to either set of regulations are not restricted for
>>>> export.
>>>>
>>>> On 20 February 2020, Open Research Institute (ORI) filed a Commodity
>>>> Jurisdiction (CJ) Request with the US State Department, seeking to
>>>> establish that key technologies for amateur radio are not subject to
>>>> State
>>>> Department jurisdiction. ?Information and Software for a Digital
>>>> Microwave
>>>> Broadband Communications System for Space and Terrestrial Amateur Radio
>>>> Use? was assigned the case number CJ0003120. On 11 August 2020, the case
>>>> received a successful final determination: the technology is not
>>>> subject to
>>>> State Department jurisdiction. This is the best possible outcome of a CJ
>>>> request.
>>>>
>>>> The Final Determination letter can be found at
>>>>
>>>>
https://openresearch.institute/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/08/CJ-0003120-
Final-Determination-Letter.pdf
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Under this determination, the technologies are subject to the EAR. The
>>>> next
>>>> step is to submit a classification request to the Commerce Department.
>>>> ORI
>>>> anticipates that the Commerce Department will find that these
>>>> technologies
>>>> are unrestricted under the carve-out for open source in the EAR.
>>>>
>>>> Open Research Institute (ORI) is a non-profit research and development
>>>> organization which provides all of its work to the general public under
>>>> the
>>>> principles of Open Source and Open Access to Research.
>>>>
>>>> This work was accomplished by a team of dedicated and competent open
>>>> source
>>>> volunteers. The effort was initiated by Bruce Perens K6BP and lead by
>>>> Michelle Thompson W5NYV.
>>>>
>>>> Open Research Institute developed the ideas behind the Commodity
>>>> Jurisdiction request, hired Thomsen and Burke LLP (https://t-b.com/)
>>>> for
>>>> expert legal advice, organized the revisions of the document, and
>>>> invited
>>>> organizations and individuals with amateur satellite service interests
>>>> to
>>>> join or support the request.
>>>>
>>>> ORI thanks Libre Space Foundation and Dr. Daniel Estevez for providing
>>>> their subject matter expertise and written testimony, and JAMSAT for
>>>> helpful encouragement and support.
>>>>
>>>> The legal costs were fully reimbursed with a generous grant from Amateur
>>>> Radio Digital Communications (ARDC). See
>>>> https://www.ampr.org/grants/grant-open-research-institute/.
>>>>
>>>> ARDC and ORI share a vision of clearly establishing open source as the
>>>> best
>>>> and safest way to accomplish technical volunteer work in amateur radio.
>>>> This final determination letter provides solid support for that vision.
>>>> The
>>>> determination enables the development of implementation guidelines that
>>>> will allow free international collaboration.
>>>>
>>>> This clears the path for a number of interesting projects facilitating
>>>> new
>>>> methods for terrestrial and satellite communications, opening the door
>>>> to
>>>> robust global digital amateur communications.
>>>>
>>>> Questions and inquiries to ori@????????????.?????????
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>>>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
>>>> Opinions expressed
>>>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views
>>>> of AMSAT-NA.
>>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>>>> program!
>>>> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>>>
>>> --
>> -Michelle W5NYV
>>
>> "Potestatem obscuri lateris nescis."
>>
>>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:11:27 -0400
From: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
To: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
Cc: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be
Free of ITAR
Message-ID:
<CADkz4c_jsYk+jeD7Ps3hQWhwH2eRpASGCzF9S2EqR7RH4yVnzA@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Michelle,
Public link to a copy of the submitted form DS-4076 (and supplemental
materials if-any)?
Public link to a copy of all communications with the DDTC?
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:02 AM Michelle Thompson <
mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
> Again, all information used in the request is already public.
>
> Again, the policies used to make the succesful request are also already
> public and in use.
>
> You are spilling a lot of ink asking for things to be shared that have
> already been shared. I've already said I will ask the firm what can be
> released.
>
> The final determination is of enormous benefit to AMSAT and many other
> organizations. The request was deliberately designed that way, and it
> worked.
>
> Time to put it to work for AMSAT.
>
> And celebrate! :+)
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 06:24 Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
> wrote:
>
>> Michelle,
>>
>>
>> Standby. The community has absolutely no reason, whatsoever to trust any
>> guidelines your group is publishing, unless the community is given direct
>> insight into the request itself and all direct communications with the
>> DDTC, so that the context and realities of the determination can be
>> validated. What i'm asking for here is not inappropriate, given the
>> history, context or claims being made.
>>
>>
>> This, "Just trust what we say we did", is Not Transparent and does not
>> instill confidence in anyone about what is going on. I do, on the other
>> hand, have Hope, that the claims being made are supported.
>>
>>
>> I will say though, I actually laughed out loud when I read "Information
>> contained in CJ requests is not usually made public. The law firm would not
>> file it unless it was presented to the State Department as private and
>> confidential." Because, C'mon.. noone in their right mind is going to
>> read that and say "oh yeah!" and agree that they should just turn their
>> brains off to the actual request.
>>
>>
>> With respects to the first sentence, the reality is that most companies
>> dealing with the DDTC are exporting defense articles and services. As a
>> result, there's usually a contractual need (and could be a real life/death
>> reason) to keep the communications with the DDTC, confidential. Because
>> the intent here is not to manufacture/export defense articles or services,
>> there should be no harm in the request being made public. I mean, I
>> believe everyone on the -bb would unanimously Want to see it. On the
>> second sentence, I have an attorney on retainer for my business and I could
>> easily go to them and say "All communications between parties A and B for
>> this effort will be placed into the public domain, in support of an
>> outreach effort going on with this charity, so treat it that way". And,
>> that's what would happen, because, that's what I would be paying them to
>> do. In addition, I am free to take my legal business elsewhere if-need-be
>> and I do not have to beg, plead, or pay for any release. Sometimes, having
>> a second set of legal eyes on legal work products is a good thing. I would
>> not have the firm file on my behalf with the DDTC, because there's really
>> no need. That's giving them more power and responsibility in the process
>> than they actually need. I'd use them more as support personnel /
>> consultants on an as-needed basis, vs the directors of the effort that you
>> now have to beg for a release (of your own information...) This sounds
>> like a disaster.
>>
>>
>> The contents of a CJ request is private and confidential if and only if
>> the submitting party treats it that way.
>>
>>
>> Joseph Armbruster
>>
>> KJ4JIO
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:23 PM Michelle Thompson <
>> mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, Joseph, it?s amazing news and It is just as good as advertised.
>>>
>>> The result is of enormous and direct benefit to AMSAT.
>>>
>>> AMSAT was asked to join the request. I sent a paper letter, wrote the
>>> board, brought it up during the 2019 annual board meeting, and published
an
>>> open letter. I did all I could to enable the full participation of the one
>>> organization that stands to benefit the most from this determination.
>>>
>>> But, the men you voted for did not respond, at all.
>>>
>>> It took a year of very hard work. It?s a gift to the community. It can
>>> restore free and open international collaboration.
>>>
>>> That?s it. There?s no tricks or gotchas. It is what it is claimed to be.
>>>
>>> I would have done the same work and raised the same money if AMSAT had
>>> wanted their name on it. I would be just as proud and would be saying the
>>> same things. When work needs to be done, it needs to be done.
>>>
>>> Information contained in CJ requests is not usually made public. The law
>>> firm would not file it unless it was presented to the State Department as
>>> private and confidential. This advice was because virtually all requests
>>> are for proprietary programs and products. Sticking out in this regard, by
>>> doing something they advised strongly against, would not work to our
>>> advantage in any way. I want to win for open source, not die on the wrong
>>> hill.
>>>
>>> Additionally, the law firm does not want their work products or email
>>> correspondence published. We will honor that. We want to work with them
>>> again. They were fantastic, recommended by EFF, and 100% supportive of
open
>>> source.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, *everything* that went into the request is already public
>>> information. All our designs, details, policies, procedures, definitions,
>>> diagrams, and code are available to the general public free of charge,
>>> today. That?s the primary reason it succeeded. We already follow the law
>>> with respect to public domain carve outs and publishing requirements. The
>>> final determination shows the value of this approach.
>>>
>>> AMSAT can do this too. There is literally no reason not to. This is the
>>> game changer people have been waiting for.
>>>
>>> *All* of what *anyone* will need to know to take full advantage will be
>>> published in a set of implementation guidelines.
>>>
>>> This is the single best risk reduction for AMSAT volunteers that exists
>>> in US law. It is the gold standard. We have access as a community to this
>>> result because a team of very committed and competent people made it
happen
>>> and are now going to make it easy to use.
>>>
>>> Want to contribute to the guidelines? Participants are welcome.
>>>
>>> -Michelle W5NYV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 18:01 Joseph Armbruster <
>>> josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michelle,
>>>>
>>>> This is quite interesting, indeed! However, from your press release, I
>>>> really have no clue what "Information and Software for a Digital
Microwave
>>>> Broadband Communications System for Space and Terrestrial Amateur Radio
>>>> Use", means (in terms of the legalese, definitions and proper nouns used,
>>>> etc...). Depending on how they were defined, the determination may or
may
>>>> not be directly relevant to AMSAT or anyone else for that matter... And
>>>> just to be clear, i'm not trying to be a spoiler here or anything, this
>>>> could be really amazing news, or nothing more than a null determination
>>>> that sounds great in a headline but really means nothing. I think
Everyone
>>>> would welcome relaxed ITAR constraints on AMSAT engineers, in any
>>>> way, shape or form... That being said, this begs the question, is the
Form
>>>> DS-4076 and all supplemental materials, along with all written
>>>> communications with the DOS/DDTC concerning this matter, being made
>>>> public? I think this would be absolutely necessary for anyone on the
list
>>>> to get excited about this, in any way, shape or form. I looked on the
ORI
>>>> website and couldn't find anything around Feb 2020 (per the date the
>>>> indicated submission was made per the AUG11 reply from the DDTC).
>>>>
>>>> Although, I am not a particular fan of ORI so-far, which is why I voted
>>>> for Hammond, Paige, Stoetzer....
>>>>
>>>> I do commend any individual or entity that is able and willing to deal
>>>> with the DOS or DDTC. It takes a lot of time and $. At one point, my
>>>> business helped develop parts of a research UAV for a foreign military
on a
>>>> high-altitude balloon, which included a wireless network. One export
>>>> permit took over six months, with back-and-forths with questions and
>>>> clarifications, questions and clarifications, more questions and
>>>> clarifications... on and on and on... Just because they say you can
>>>> produce Information and Software for a widget (however those are
defined),
>>>> it doesn't necessarily mean you can actually get a permit to ship the
>>>> hardware with the software on it, anywhere. Because the 'Information and
>>>> Software' (however defined), may not govern the hardware used. In my
case,
>>>> there were special accelerometers and gyros, that you don't purchase
>>>> without providing a lot of information. So, no matter what software was
>>>> written to drive them, if you shipped them out of the country without a
>>>> permit, look out! I remember finally getting my first export permit and
>>>> shipping label and putting it on the box and sending some hardware out.
It
>>>> was just a sticky label that went on a box, but wow, it wasn't easy.
>>>>
>>>> It sure would be nice if ITAR was less of an issue but the devil's
>>>> really in the details here...
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Armbruster
>>>> KJ4JIO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michelle Thompson via AMSAT-BB <
>>>> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
https://openresearch.institute/2020/08/18/cj-determination-open-source-satelli
te-work-is-free-of-itar/
>>>>>
>>>>> The United States Department of State has ruled favorably on Open
>>>>> Research
>>>>> Institute's commodity jurisdiction request, finding that specified
>>>>> ?Information and Software for a Digital Microwave Broadband
>>>>> Communications
>>>>> System for Space and Terrestrial Amateur Radio Use? is definitely not
>>>>> subject to State Department jurisdiction under ITAR, the International
>>>>> Traffic in Arms Regulations. This is an important step toward reducing
>>>>> the
>>>>> burden of regulations restricting international cooperation on amateur
>>>>> satellite projects, which have impeded engineering work by amateurs in
>>>>> the
>>>>> United States for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Export regulations divide both technical information and actual
>>>>> hardware
>>>>> into three categories. The most heavily restricted technologies fall
>>>>> under
>>>>> ITAR, which is administered by the State Department. Technologies
>>>>> subject
>>>>> to more routine restrictions fall under EAR, the Export Administration
>>>>> Regulations, administered by the Department of Commerce. Technologies
>>>>> that
>>>>> are not subject to either set of regulations are not restricted for
>>>>> export.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 February 2020, Open Research Institute (ORI) filed a Commodity
>>>>> Jurisdiction (CJ) Request with the US State Department, seeking to
>>>>> establish that key technologies for amateur radio are not subject to
>>>>> State
>>>>> Department jurisdiction. ?Information and Software for a Digital
>>>>> Microwave
>>>>> Broadband Communications System for Space and Terrestrial Amateur Radio
>>>>> Use? was assigned the case number CJ0003120. On 11 August 2020, the
>>>>> case
>>>>> received a successful final determination: the technology is not
>>>>> subject to
>>>>> State Department jurisdiction. This is the best possible outcome of a
>>>>> CJ
>>>>> request.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Final Determination letter can be found at
>>>>>
>>>>>
https://openresearch.institute/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/08/CJ-0003120-
Final-Determination-Letter.pdf
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Under this determination, the technologies are subject to the EAR. The
>>>>> next
>>>>> step is to submit a classification request to the Commerce Department.
>>>>> ORI
>>>>> anticipates that the Commerce Department will find that these
>>>>> technologies
>>>>> are unrestricted under the carve-out for open source in the EAR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Research Institute (ORI) is a non-profit research and development
>>>>> organization which provides all of its work to the general public
>>>>> under the
>>>>> principles of Open Source and Open Access to Research.
>>>>>
>>>>> This work was accomplished by a team of dedicated and competent open
>>>>> source
>>>>> volunteers. The effort was initiated by Bruce Perens K6BP and lead by
>>>>> Michelle Thompson W5NYV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Research Institute developed the ideas behind the Commodity
>>>>> Jurisdiction request, hired Thomsen and Burke LLP (https://t-b.com/)
>>>>> for
>>>>> expert legal advice, organized the revisions of the document, and
>>>>> invited
>>>>> organizations and individuals with amateur satellite service interests
>>>>> to
>>>>> join or support the request.
>>>>>
>>>>> ORI thanks Libre Space Foundation and Dr. Daniel Estevez for providing
>>>>> their subject matter expertise and written testimony, and JAMSAT for
>>>>> helpful encouragement and support.
>>>>>
>>>>> The legal costs were fully reimbursed with a generous grant from
>>>>> Amateur
>>>>> Radio Digital Communications (ARDC). See
>>>>> https://www.ampr.org/grants/grant-open-research-institute/.
>>>>>
>>>>> ARDC and ORI share a vision of clearly establishing open source as the
>>>>> best
>>>>> and safest way to accomplish technical volunteer work in amateur radio.
>>>>> This final determination letter provides solid support for that
>>>>> vision. The
>>>>> determination enables the development of implementation guidelines that
>>>>> will allow free international collaboration.
>>>>>
>>>>> This clears the path for a number of interesting projects facilitating
>>>>> new
>>>>> methods for terrestrial and satellite communications, opening the door
>>>>> to
>>>>> robust global digital amateur communications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Questions and inquiries to ori@????????????.?????????
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>>>>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
>>>>> Opinions expressed
>>>>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views
>>>>> of AMSAT-NA.
>>>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>>>>> program!
>>>>> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> -Michelle W5NYV
>>>
>>> "Potestatem obscuri lateris nescis."
>>>
>>>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@?????.???.
AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide
without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 15, Issue 341
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
