| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 19.08.20 22:24l 1437 Lines 59502 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB15343
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V15 343
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<DB0ERF<OK0NAG<F3KT<CX2SA
Sent: 200819/2016Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:37848 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB15343
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (Michelle Thompson)
2. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (E.Mike McCardel)
3. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (Bruce Perens)
4. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (Joseph Armbruster)
5. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (Jeff Johns)
6. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (Michelle Thompson)
7. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (David Swanson)
8. Re: Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
(Joseph Armbruster)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:10:48 -0700
From: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
To: "E.Mike McCardel" <mccardelm@?????.???>
Cc: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID:
<CACvjz2VA8K-TWiq6cnOHVVNRu8bSup+yOReSHcoF-t4jWkdgQQ@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
You might have missed the part where all of the information in this
particular CJ request is already publicly available. It's already
transparent.
The submitted form itself is not usually published. That's the only
restriction we are talking about.
This is fundamentally different from refusing to allow Directors access to
corporate records unless they sign NDAs, then showing up without the actual
NDAs, then continuing to deny access to records and communications after
everyone signed a blank form that purported to be a signature form for
these alleged NDAs. Some of which have yet to be produced and you as a
member are not allowed to know about.
Your attack is off base and inaccurate. I'm sorry you feel the way you do.
This work means that things can get dramatically better for the
organization in highly visible and measurable ways.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:33 AM E.Mike McCardel via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> Just an observation. Among all of this talk, during the past BOoD election
> cycle, about Transparency, I find it amazing that the excuse of the Lawyers
> or others don't think it wise to disclose information can even be an
> argument.
>
> Michelle Wrote:
> "Unless, of course, this 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. as an admission that NDA's are indeed important and not just
> convenient."
>
> Is this not the very essence of Non-Disclosure Agreements? Without the
> transparency which seems to be lacking here this comes across as a simple
> political stunt. Enough already.
>
> I am not voting for any TEAM, I'm putting my trust in individuals whom I
> respect and trust and have no agenda other than serving AMSAT to keep
> amateur radio in space.
>
> EMike, AA8EM
>
>
>
> E. Michael McCardel, AA8EM, former KC8YLD
> Former Senior Editor for AMSAT News Service,
> Past VP Educational Relations for AMSAT-NA
> Former Ohio Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:24:57 -0400
From: "E.Mike McCardel" <mccardelm@?????.???>
To: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
Cc: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID: <BDB7F3B4-5DE9-483B-8EF7-4D117A8D25B7@?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
My final word. At least some people on your agendized team, for the take
over of AMSAT, I hold or have held in high respect. That is, at least until
they allowed themselves to be associated with this travesty of ego. I now
question their judgement And motivation. That?s on you. TEAM politics isn?t
what this is about. Character, track record, and how I have seen candidates
treat Me and others is how I will vote.
I am highly disappointed that this has turned into a we / they campaign. The
organization is better than that. Regardless of the outcome of this
election, I judge AMSAT and it reputation will be damaged moving forward.
EMike, AA8EM
EMike McCardel, AA8EM
Past Senior Editor AMSAT News Service
Past AMSAT-NA VP Educational Relations
Former ARRL, Ohio Section, Affiliated Club Coordinator
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 1:11 PM, Michelle Thompson
<mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
>
> ?
> You might have missed the part where all of the information in this
particular CJ request is already publicly available. It's already transparent.
>
> The submitted form itself is not usually published. That's the only
restriction we are talking about.
>
> This is fundamentally different from refusing to allow Directors access to
corporate records unless they sign NDAs, then showing up without the actual
NDAs, then continuing to deny access to records and communications after
everyone signed a blank form that purported to be a signature form for these
alleged NDAs. Some of which have yet to be produced and you as a member are
not allowed to know about.
>
> Your attack is off base and inaccurate. I'm sorry you feel the way you do.
This work means that things can get dramatically better for the organization
in highly visible and measurable ways.
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:33 AM E.Mike McCardel via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>> Just an observation. Among all of this talk, during the past BOoD election
>> cycle, about Transparency, I find it amazing that the excuse of the Lawyers
>> or others don't think it wise to disclose information can even be an
>> argument.
>>
>> Michelle Wrote:
>> "Unless, of course, this 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. as an admission that NDA's are indeed important and not just
>> convenient."
>>
>> Is this not the very essence of Non-Disclosure Agreements? Without the
>> transparency which seems to be lacking here this comes across as a simple
>> political stunt. Enough already.
>>
>> I am not voting for any TEAM, I'm putting my trust in individuals whom I
>> respect and trust and have no agenda other than serving AMSAT to keep
>> amateur radio in space.
>>
>> EMike, AA8EM
>>
>>
>>
>> E. Michael McCardel, AA8EM, former KC8YLD
>> Former Senior Editor for AMSAT News Service,
>> Past VP Educational Relations for AMSAT-NA
>> Former Ohio Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:41:29 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
To: "E.Mike McCardel" <mccardelm@?????.???>
Cc: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID:
<CAK2MWOtPNcQ00gY346GybPkdQOoYpNKnzkJjfVjd+R2EjBXGig@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sorry you feel that way. The unfortunate fact is that AMSAT has already
been judged by its outside funding organizations, and is going to have a
hard time surmounting that without a major change in leadership. It isn't
going to matter much for you to stick with leadership who can't can't build
and launch enough satellites. That is what it is coming to. Fixing that is
the only agenda.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 11:18 AM E.Mike McCardel via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> My final word. At least some people on your agendized team, for the take
> over of AMSAT, I hold or have held in high respect. That is, at least until
> they allowed themselves to be associated with this travesty of ego. I now
> question their judgement And motivation. That?s on you. TEAM politics isn?t
> what this is about. Character, track record, and how I have seen candidates
> treat Me and others is how I will vote.
>
> I am highly disappointed that this has turned into a we / they campaign.
> The organization is better than that. Regardless of the outcome of this
> election, I judge AMSAT and it reputation will be damaged moving forward.
>
> EMike, AA8EM
>
> EMike McCardel, AA8EM
> Past Senior Editor AMSAT News Service
> Past AMSAT-NA VP Educational Relations
> Former ARRL, Ohio Section, Affiliated Club Coordinator
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 2020, at 1:11 PM, Michelle Thompson <
> mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> > You might have missed the part where all of the information in this
> particular CJ request is already publicly available. It's already
> transparent.
> >
> > The submitted form itself is not usually published. That's the only
> restriction we are talking about.
> >
> > This is fundamentally different from refusing to allow Directors access
> to corporate records unless they sign NDAs, then showing up without the
> actual NDAs, then continuing to deny access to records and communications
> after everyone signed a blank form that purported to be a signature form
> for these alleged NDAs. Some of which have yet to be produced and you as a
> member are not allowed to know about.
> >
> > Your attack is off base and inaccurate. I'm sorry you feel the way you
> do. This work means that things can get dramatically better for the
> organization in highly visible and measurable ways.
> >
> > -Michelle W5NYV
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:33 AM E.Mike McCardel via AMSAT-BB <
> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> >> Just an observation. Among all of this talk, during the past BOoD
> election
> >> cycle, about Transparency, I find it amazing that the excuse of the
> Lawyers
> >> or others don't think it wise to disclose information can even be an
> >> argument.
> >>
> >> Michelle Wrote:
> >> "Unless, of course, this 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. as an admission that NDA's are indeed important and not just
> >> convenient."
> >>
> >> Is this not the very essence of Non-Disclosure Agreements? Without the
> >> transparency which seems to be lacking here this comes across as a
> simple
> >> political stunt. Enough already.
> >>
> >> I am not voting for any TEAM, I'm putting my trust in individuals whom I
> >> respect and trust and have no agenda other than serving AMSAT to keep
> >> amateur radio in space.
> >>
> >> EMike, AA8EM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> E. Michael McCardel, AA8EM, former KC8YLD
> >> Former Senior Editor for AMSAT News Service,
> >> Past VP Educational Relations for AMSAT-NA
> >> Former Ohio Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:56:16 -0400
From: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
To: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
Cc: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@?????.???>, "E.Mike McCardel"
<mccardelm@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID:
<CADkz4c9Eko7CG6XKDO8_YpL70dfPULD0D6qx2hOzVrGDqL32EA@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Michelle,
The request form itself contains ALL OF THE INFORMATION that anyone on the
-bb should care about on this matter.
For all we know right now, the request paperwork may not have even
referenced the designs that you speak of. We literally have no way of
knowing.
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:18 PM Michelle Thompson via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> You might have missed the part where all of the information in this
> particular CJ request is already publicly available. It's already
> transparent.
>
> The submitted form itself is not usually published. That's the only
> restriction we are talking about.
>
> This is fundamentally different from refusing to allow Directors access to
> corporate records unless they sign NDAs, then showing up without the actual
> NDAs, then continuing to deny access to records and communications after
> everyone signed a blank form that purported to be a signature form for
> these alleged NDAs. Some of which have yet to be produced and you as a
> member are not allowed to know about.
>
> Your attack is off base and inaccurate. I'm sorry you feel the way you do.
> This work means that things can get dramatically better for the
> organization in highly visible and measurable ways.
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:33 AM E.Mike McCardel via AMSAT-BB <
> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>
> > Just an observation. Among all of this talk, during the past BOoD
> election
> > cycle, about Transparency, I find it amazing that the excuse of the
> Lawyers
> > or others don't think it wise to disclose information can even be an
> > argument.
> >
> > Michelle Wrote:
> > "Unless, of course, this 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. as an admission that NDA's are indeed important and not just
> > convenient."
> >
> > Is this not the very essence of Non-Disclosure Agreements? Without the
> > transparency which seems to be lacking here this comes across as a simple
> > political stunt. Enough already.
> >
> > I am not voting for any TEAM, I'm putting my trust in individuals whom I
> > respect and trust and have no agenda other than serving AMSAT to keep
> > amateur radio in space.
> >
> > EMike, AA8EM
> >
> >
> >
> > E. Michael McCardel, AA8EM, former KC8YLD
> > Former Senior Editor for AMSAT News Service,
> > Past VP Educational Relations for AMSAT-NA
> > Former Ohio Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:56:54 -0500
From: Jeff Johns <jeff30339@?????.???>
To: AMSAT <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID: <F77C7572-361B-455D-B266-DF2E53EBD020@?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
?What does Michelle, an AMSAT volunteer and Board member, making an
announcement about something she raised funds for and accomplished that can
possibly benefit AMSAT have to do with politics?
I?m not an EE or an ITAR/EAR expert but what I see is an enthusiastic
volunteer that is talking the talk and walking the walk and doing so in an
attempt to help AMSAT and anyone else wanting to build amateur satellites.
What is anyone from within AMSAT doing in the same regards? Who is writing
grant requests? Who is working with legal teams (not the teams used to
muffle new Board members) to work on these carve outs? Maybe it is happening
within AMSAT but getting any news out of AMSAT is frustrating for members.
Michelle says that she reached out to AMSAT at the Symposium and via other
methods but didn?t get any replies from within the organization? Why not?
Why isn?t AMSAT embracing someone that is obviously enthusiastic and has the
ability to raise funds on her own. Why isn?t AMSAT using these synergies
within the organization?
I just think it?s sad to see so many basically attacking Michelle for being
proud of an accomplishment. An accomplishment that AMSAT could have claimed
under the AMSAT banner had they been willing to work with her. Why is there
such a fear from legacy leadership of new thoughts, ideas and methods?
We should all be thanking Michelle for working on this and encouraging and
helping rather than berating her. If an outsider where to look at this,
would they really want to volunteer for AMSAT or would they fear they would
be attacked for attempting to do great things?
Some of those running for office against me are promising the world an HEO
satellite. Seems to me that we will need the work that Michelle is freely
doing and donating to the world to make that happen under current laws,
rules and regulations.
Even though I may not be an ITAR expert, I can appreciate the fact that
Michelle has worked on her accomplishment and is freely sharing it with
AMSAT. Is it really that difficult for people to just say ?thank you?? It?s
not hard for me so, Michelle, thank you for donating your time and talents
to help further amateur satellites and for helping to keep amateur radio in
space. There are those in the community that can recognize your efforts and
appreciate them.
Jeff WE4B
http://we4bravo.com
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 1:20 PM, E.Mike McCardel via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>
> ?My final word. At least some people on your agendized team, for the take
over of AMSAT, I hold or have held in high respect. That is, at least until
they allowed themselves to be associated with this travesty of ego. I now
question their judgement And motivation. That?s on you. TEAM politics isn?t
what this is about. Character, track record, and how I have seen candidates
treat Me and others is how I will vote.
>
> I am highly disappointed that this has turned into a we / they campaign.
The organization is better than that. Regardless of the outcome of this
election, I judge AMSAT and it reputation will be damaged moving forward.
>
> EMike, AA8EM
>
> EMike McCardel, AA8EM
> Past Senior Editor AMSAT News Service
> Past AMSAT-NA VP Educational Relations
> Former ARRL, Ohio Section, Affiliated Club Coordinator
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:20:56 -0700
From: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
To: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
Cc: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@?????.???>, "E.Mike McCardel"
<mccardelm@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID:
<CACvjz2UU6TbrqgAviKzUm8jBiL_GPeB=CXEzUJ5JJJvvG+T4QQ@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
If the request paperwork did not show ITAR 120.11 designs and policies,
then it would not have been approved. All of the information is available
already, to the general public. That's why it was successful. The work is
NOT subject to ITAR because the approach complies with existing
regulations.
This is not an easy process to get through.
The result is really good news.
You can keep arguing with the US State Department all you like, but I don't
think that is a very good strategy. This dramatically reduces volunteer
risk for AMSAT and all related organizations. It has a huge positive impact
for free and open international collaboration on amateur
satellite projects.
Thank you to everyone that will be a positive part of this going forward.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:54 AM Joseph Armbruster <
josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
> Michelle,
>
> The request form itself contains ALL OF THE INFORMATION that anyone on the
> -bb should care about on this matter.
>
> For all we know right now, the request paperwork may not have even
> referenced the designs that you speak of. We literally have no way of
> knowing.
>
> Joseph Armbruster
> KJ4JIO
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:18 PM Michelle Thompson via AMSAT-BB <
> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>
>> You might have missed the part where all of the information in this
>> particular CJ request is already publicly available. It's already
>> transparent.
>>
>> The submitted form itself is not usually published. That's the only
>> restriction we are talking about.
>>
>> This is fundamentally different from refusing to allow Directors access to
>> corporate records unless they sign NDAs, then showing up without the
>> actual
>> NDAs, then continuing to deny access to records and communications after
>> everyone signed a blank form that purported to be a signature form for
>> these alleged NDAs. Some of which have yet to be produced and you as a
>> member are not allowed to know about.
>>
>> Your attack is off base and inaccurate. I'm sorry you feel the way you do.
>> This work means that things can get dramatically better for the
>> organization in highly visible and measurable ways.
>>
>> -Michelle W5NYV
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:33 AM E.Mike McCardel via AMSAT-BB <
>> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>> > Just an observation. Among all of this talk, during the past BOoD
>> election
>> > cycle, about Transparency, I find it amazing that the excuse of the
>> Lawyers
>> > or others don't think it wise to disclose information can even be an
>> > argument.
>> >
>> > Michelle Wrote:
>> > "Unless, of course, this 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. as an admission that NDA's are indeed important and not just
>> > convenient."
>> >
>> > Is this not the very essence of Non-Disclosure Agreements? Without the
>> > transparency which seems to be lacking here this comes across as a
>> simple
>> > political stunt. Enough already.
>> >
>> > I am not voting for any TEAM, I'm putting my trust in individuals whom I
>> > respect and trust and have no agenda other than serving AMSAT to keep
>> > amateur radio in space.
>> >
>> > EMike, AA8EM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > E. Michael McCardel, AA8EM, former KC8YLD
>> > Former Senior Editor for AMSAT News Service,
>> > Past VP Educational Relations for AMSAT-NA
>> > Former Ohio Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:32:04 -0500
From: David Swanson <dave@?????????????.???>
Cc: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID:
<CANq+eyXSR3UUb+GwTqV6mcfzJT29SxtQwSfR4+yboBMfd8wZ+g@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I'm sorry - but this thread is absolutely hilarious, and the last reply by
Mr. Perens is the cherry on top of the stupidity cake.
Michelle and her comrades have spouted all about transparency and openness
for the past year, but when they're presented with an opportunity to be
transparent and open with their competing organizations they play the 'Our
Lawyers said not to share card'. When presented with their hypocrisy they
retreat to the completely expected position of politicians everywhere by
claiming that while AMSAT should make everything open, ORI has a right to
keep things secret, because what they're doing is special and different.
And then - amazingly - still have the audacity to somehow justify their
position by claiming AMSAT isn't launching satellites? Unless I'm mistaken,
ORI/Perens Inc. have launched precisely *ZERO* birds ever - AMSAT has put 4
birds in orbit since I've been a member, and has provided parts and
guidance to countless 3rd parties to launch their own birds. They have a
realistic plan to get more birds into the orbits operators want despite not
being part of the in-crowd... I have complete faith that they will deliver,
because they already have. ORI has delivered jack all except promises and
chaos.
Maybe - just MAYBE - this thread lays bare what the community will be
getting with "the slate" of candidates. A whole bunch of "Thee, but not for
me" type of leadership, and a whole bunch of empty guarantees.
-Dave, KG5CCI
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:17 PM Bruce Perens via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> Sorry you feel that way. The unfortunate fact is that AMSAT has already
> been judged by its outside funding organizations, and is going to have a
> hard time surmounting that without a major change in leadership. It isn't
> going to matter much for you to stick with leadership who can't can't build
> and launch enough satellites. That is what it is coming to. Fixing that is
> the only agenda.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 11:18 AM E.Mike McCardel via AMSAT-BB <
> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>
> > My final word. At least some people on your agendized team, for the take
> > over of AMSAT, I hold or have held in high respect. That is, at least
> until
> > they allowed themselves to be associated with this travesty of ego. I now
> > question their judgement And motivation. That?s on you. TEAM politics
> isn?t
> > what this is about. Character, track record, and how I have seen
> candidates
> > treat Me and others is how I will vote.
> >
> > I am highly disappointed that this has turned into a we / they campaign.
> > The organization is better than that. Regardless of the outcome of this
> > election, I judge AMSAT and it reputation will be damaged moving forward.
> >
> > EMike, AA8EM
> >
> > EMike McCardel, AA8EM
> > Past Senior Editor AMSAT News Service
> > Past AMSAT-NA VP Educational Relations
> > Former ARRL, Ohio Section, Affiliated Club Coordinator
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 19, 2020, at 1:11 PM, Michelle Thompson <
> > mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
> > >
> > > ?
> > > You might have missed the part where all of the information in this
> > particular CJ request is already publicly available. It's already
> > transparent.
> > >
> > > The submitted form itself is not usually published. That's the only
> > restriction we are talking about.
> > >
> > > This is fundamentally different from refusing to allow Directors access
> > to corporate records unless they sign NDAs, then showing up without the
> > actual NDAs, then continuing to deny access to records and communications
> > after everyone signed a blank form that purported to be a signature form
> > for these alleged NDAs. Some of which have yet to be produced and you as
> a
> > member are not allowed to know about.
> > >
> > > Your attack is off base and inaccurate. I'm sorry you feel the way you
> > do. This work means that things can get dramatically better for the
> > organization in highly visible and measurable ways.
> > >
> > > -Michelle W5NYV
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:33 AM E.Mike McCardel via AMSAT-BB <
> > amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> > >> Just an observation. Among all of this talk, during the past BOoD
> > election
> > >> cycle, about Transparency, I find it amazing that the excuse of the
> > Lawyers
> > >> or others don't think it wise to disclose information can even be an
> > >> argument.
> > >>
> > >> Michelle Wrote:
> > >> "Unless, of course, this 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. as an admission that NDA's are indeed important and not just
> > >> convenient."
> > >>
> > >> Is this not the very essence of Non-Disclosure Agreements? Without the
> > >> transparency which seems to be lacking here this comes across as a
> > simple
> > >> political stunt. Enough already.
> > >>
> > >> I am not voting for any TEAM, I'm putting my trust in individuals
> whom I
> > >> respect and trust and have no agenda other than serving AMSAT to keep
> > >> amateur radio in space.
> > >>
> > >> EMike, AA8EM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> E. Michael McCardel, AA8EM, former KC8YLD
> > >> Former Senior Editor for AMSAT News Service,
> > >> Past VP Educational Relations for AMSAT-NA
> > >> Former Ohio Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:48:42 -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:
<CADkz4c9_8tXut-PHrWCDZo6rbJAMvKFrFpt=wr2Xu81FSvj_7g@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Michelle,
There's a major, major difference between what you are trying to accomplish
from an 'open and transparency' perspective and what your average
commercial business would do (or AMSAT would likely do, with NDAs in
place...)
There's no need for me to publish any of my companies info, because this is
not really about my business. I did not release an email to the -bb with
the title "Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR".
That's quite a claim and mama didn't raise no fool here and I know the
devil's always in the details with these kinds of things. And we haven't
been provided with any of the details yet, only claims of success! I know,
with absolute certainty, that you can have an "open source design",
alllllll you want, composed of specific hardware components that may only
be available to US Persons, you can publish it here, there and everywhere!
However, if you attempted to put the hardware in a box and ship it outside
the US for integration, without an export permit, you can get into major
trouble. Private companies that develop products and/or offer services for
others typically work under NDAs and they have unique IP interests
(designs, business relationships, etc...) that they wish to protect/keep
secret. If that kind of information is included in the CJ request, it's up
to the submitter to serve their agreements and protect the information
(if-so-agreed-upon).
>From what i've observed, what you're trying to do is the polar opposite.
It's suppose to be about open source, becoming free of ITAR, serving the
amateur radio community, making all the designs public and free of IP
constraints and most importantly, being transparent about the process (....
and you all seem to use the noble term "Transparency", quite a bit... ref
previous -bb emails...). If all the designs are public and there's no IP
to protect, why would the CJ request need to be kept private? The request
that was submitted and adjudicated, contained specific words, likely
referenced specific designs, that may or may not have referenced any of the
designs that you are referring to. It's impossible for any of us to make
any sense of your release, or substantiate Any of the claims, without it.
This is the difference in my opinion. You're obviously not going to find
any other companies submissions around, because they are by-nature, focused
on secrecy and protecting IP, not doing charitable work. Yours on the
other hand, should be about transparency to the open source / amateur
community, not about secrecy and protecting whatever it is...
And, you may say that what i'm asking for is something the "law firm
specifically advised against doing"... but we all know that's just
silly... Anyone here on the-bb can look up the exact form and see what
data is requested on it. There is nothing that any open source guru
wouldn't be more than willing to disclose publicly.
That's my 10 cents,
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:03 PM Michelle Thompson <
mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
> Yes. Again, all the information that went into the DS-4076 is already
> publicly available (designs and policies). You can find all the design
> information in our repositories and the policies on our website.
>
> You can see a significant part of the described transmitter design for
> yourself in the review workshop video I posted about a week ago here on
> -BB.
>
> The posting of the submitted DS-4076 seems to be so rare that I cannot
> find an example of one shared on the web. You are asking for something that
> the law firm specifically advised against doing. Again, I have said I would
> raise the issue next time I meet with them.
>
> If you can show me your company's DS-4076 postings, then maybe that would
> help support your point of view. I couldn't find them on the web. I'd
> appreciate the name of the consulting firm or law firm that your company
> used for the CJ Requests so I can call them about their approach to
> releasing their work products. This is an area I'm very interested in for a
> variety of reasons, not just for amateur radio. I'm in strong favor of
> publishing everything possible, but all of us need to honor legitimate or
> required limitations, like the ones we are discussing here.
>
> If it's routine to post DS-4076 submissions, and if you somehow can't use
> a final determination without them, then I should be seeing a lot more
> published DS-4076s than final determination letters. That doesn't appear to
> be the case at all from looking at the list of determinations made over the
> past couple of years, tracking down ones that published their final
> determination letters, and looking for DS-4076s.
>
> All the information and policies involved in this particular request are
> already public. The existence of the determination can be independently
> verified. Your questions have all been answered in the affirmative.
>
> AMSAT's ITAR/EAR consulting firm was notified of this CJ Request process,
> application, and the final determination. The response has been very
> positive and supportive throughout. There are no roadblocks to using this
> final determination to establish a safe and sane open source policy for
> AMSAT from the consulting firm that AMSAT already uses. The proposal and
> retainer fee from this consulting firm for this policy work is sitting on
> the President's desk. I've done all the work necessary to make it easy and
> effective. It's a pleasure to be able to do so, and I look forward to a
> renaissance in the technical volunteer corps.
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:16 AM Joseph Armbruster <
> josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
>
>> Michelle,
>>
>> The determination letter itself needs to be interpreted in the correct
>> context. Noone on the -bb can make any sense of that determination letter
>> right now, without seeing a copy of what was submitted on the form
>> DS-4076. I can not find this posted publicly anywhere, did I miss it?
>>
>> Is the submitted form DS-4076 (and supplemental materials if-any),
>> posted publicly?
>>
>> If-not, this whole announcement is basically a shoulder shrug for me. It
>> Sounds great... but, we have no evidence that the determination letter
>> actually means anything of value.
>>
>> On question 2, it is good to know there was no back and forth 'juicy'
>> communication. For the record, it is not uncommon to have a back-and-forth
>> with them. They typically ask a lot of questions and dig into the
>> requests... Knowing this fact, will make it that much easier for all of
>> us on the -bb to make sense of your announcement, once we have all the
>> information.... right now, we do Not have all the required information.
>>
>> Joseph Armbruster
>> KJ4JIO
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:48 AM Michelle Thompson <
>> mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>>> The final determination letter is the only communication we received.
>>>
>>> Public link to the letter is in the announcement.
>>>
>>> I was not contacted during the 7 months of review by the government.
>>> Neither were the lawyers.
>>>
>>> I kept up with the request as it worked its way through DHS, DOD, and
>>> BIS by using the DDTC request status server.
>>>
>>> BIS was necessary because we included encryption. There was a lengthy
>>> discussion on whether or not to include encryption.
>>>
>>> Those of you that know the regulations know we are allowed to use
>>> encryption. However, this complicates the request in several ways. It
>>> requires an entire additional department to review, and there are a lot of
>>> potential pitfalls here.
>>>
>>> Not including encryption would make it faster and easier to approve, but
>>> would make the result incomplete.
>>>
>>> We decided to include encryption, trigger the extra scrutiny, and we
>>> worked through all the language. If we were going to run the marathon then
>>> we needed to run the entire marathon.
>>>
>>> I don't believe there is usually a lot of correspondence between
>>> requestor and DDTC at all. I was told to be available for questions (from
>>> the reviewer) but that contact would be very highly unlikely.
>>>
>>> Making the request is not a negotiation or collaboration. There is no
>>> juicy trove of emails. The silence from the government was absolute.
>>>
>>> We had to have the best possible information and case upon submission,
>>> and be prepared for any outcome.
>>>
>>> -Michelle W5NYV
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 07:09 Joseph Armbruster <
>>> josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 343
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
