| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 20.08.20 00:30l 1441 Lines 58205 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB15344
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V15 344
Path: IW8PGT<LU4ECL<F4DUR<CX2SA
Sent: 200819/2225Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:37876 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB15344
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Transparency and Double Standards (Stephen DeVience)
2. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (Michelle Thompson)
3. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (Joseph Armbruster)
4. Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
(Joe Leikhim)
5. Re: Transparency and Double Standards (John Brier)
6. Re: Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
(Joseph Armbruster)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:07:19 -0500
From: Stephen DeVience <sjdevience@?????.???>
To: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID:
<CAMPfQQCttZ+QLbRFY9K8WLqfHWJnxwikqzemZM61tiLZA88nqg@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
This bulletin board must be what it's like to see Space-X and ULA or Boeing
and Airbus in the same room. Maybe it would be better if ORI and AMSAT
remained totally separate organizations, and this vitriol could be
harnessed through healthy competition, an amateur space-race back to HEO.
May the best philosophy win!
-Stephen, N8URE
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:36:37 -0700
From: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
To: David Swanson <dave@?????????????.???>
Cc: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID:
<CACvjz2VmVq-qiCWhV-HEu7UY1G7GnHSU2GZyEEGndMnb7CNnvQ@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
All of the information contained in the request is already public.
I've presented my satellite credentials, both amateur and professional, in
the past, several times. I've explained what I've contributed to in orbit.
We have volunteers with a wide variety of commercial satellite success
across three continents. We have a lot of experienced people. Your
description is completely inaccurate and unfair. I'm not sure why you keep
doing this given the proven track record of the active volunteer corps of
ORI.
You know, there's a lot of AMSAT/ORI volunteers. Attacking ORI is attacking
AMSAT, since it's an AMSAT Member Society. Attacking ORI is attacking AMSAT
volunteers, given the large amount of crossover. Please stop.
The submission packet itself for a CJ Request is not normally made public.
I've agreed to try and get it published. As far as I can tell, this would
be unique.
But, hey, the successful CJ Request result was unique, so why not. I might
be able to pull it off.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:21 PM David Swanson via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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 16:44:53 -0400
From: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
To: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
Cc: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@?????.???>, "E.Mike McCardel"
<mccardelm@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID:
<CADkz4c_vMrkFKBnUO9f86JqWb5q2=2Ro5BqcBEKXhMBgXoGtVw@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Bruce,
Yet another well played detraction from my original point... That the forms
submitted to the DDTC tell a story and contain all of the details of the
claim... details, which none of us on the -bb have been able to read for
ourselves, because they have NOT been shared publicly.
AMSAT is having a difficult time navigating right now, because of your
groups smoke and mirrors. It's the only negative traffic on the -bb. I do
feel bad for AMSAT, but only because of that. I think the leadership has
been doing a reasonably good job, but they don't take the time to reach out
to the public and... brag enough about their accomplishments. Honestly, I
think PR is their only failure. That's the only reason you and your group
can say the things you do on here, there are a lot of mis-informed
members. Speaking of launching satellites... How many satellites have you
been involved with building and launching in the last, say, 15 years,
through any organization, while AMSAT was hard at work?
I'm sticking with the people that have produced results and I maintain that
a vote for Hammond, Paige and Stoetzer will continue to push AMSAT in the
best direction. Whether or not a lot of people on the -bb can see it or
not, is one thing. I sure hope they do. Talk is cheap, it's easy for
someone to come on here and bash other peoples hard work in a couple lines
in an email, and sound honorable and noble and hide behind false-claims.
That... is unfortunate. All i'm trying to do on this thread is ask for the
documentation that was submitted to the DDTC... that's not an abnormal or
extraordinary request, give the open source nature of it all. Michelle did
say she would try to release the INPUT form... i'll be standing by.
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:46 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: 4
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:25:34 -0400
From: Joe Leikhim <rhyolite@???????.???>
To: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: [amsat-bb] Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free
of ITAR
Message-ID: <fd08eebd-6979-f477-cd7a-81e022e2b311@???????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
1) - Great Work Bruce P and Michelle T!
2) - So many "Debbie Downers", no wonder AMSAT has been frozen in place for
so many years:
"In the past, AMSAT volunteers have had a rude surprise when they were held
personally liable for violating ITAR,*_or so I'm told_*.
Will ORI indemnify volunteers who work on projects where it may, later, be
found that ITAR applies? Is that even possible for ORI to do?
If not, this makes me less interested in volunteering my skills and time to
ORI projects.
--- Zach
N0ZGO"
--
Joe Leikhim
Leikhim and Associates
Communications Consultants
Oviedo, Florida
JLeikhim@???????.???
407-982-0446
WWW.LEIKHIM.COM
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:46:41 -0400
From: John Brier <johnbrier@?????.???>
To: David Swanson <dave@?????????????.???>
Cc: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Transparency and Double Standards
Message-ID:
<CALn0fKMUgmMZYnsLCZX5JMW9z_npWgHgaMWP6WQGp0W_KcmHfg@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
This is not a double standard or a lack of transparency. Their lawyer
requested they not release certain information and they are doing as
requested.
Open source software companies work with security embargos on
vulnerabilities, and NDAs on prerelease hardware all the time. They keep
specific things secret for as long as they have to and then open it up as
soon as they can.
Michelle even said she would double check with the lawyers to see if they
can release it. She is also looking into whether there are examples of this
form being published online by other orgs. She is not saying flat out no
because I have a right to.
73, John Brier KG4AKV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 16:21 David Swanson via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 6
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:38:59 -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-e4ZwEMXA+mcqU=aT4bFc8U6RXZPtFjigB8LDckRHsWg@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Michelle,
Ok, so just everyone on the BB is entirely clear about what is going on
here.
Your team submitted forms to the DDTC, apparently on February 20, 2020.
This form that was submitted to the DDTC with the request, has NOT BEEN
MADE PUBLIC. As a result, we can not read it. This document, that we can
not read, has all the verbiage that matters and is the document that the
DDTC would have responded to directly.
Previously, you have referenced designs that are publicly available, but we
have no way of knowing if the form above actually referenced those designs
or not. Again, we (the community) have absolutely no way of knowing or
verifying this information, because we can not read the submission.
You publicly announced on the -bb that "Open Source Satellite Work
Determined to be Free of ITAR" and publicly were willing to share the DDTC
response to the forms submitted above, namely the commodity jurisdiction
determination. But, we (the community) have no clue what this
determination is actually referring to, because we can not read what was
being adjudicated.
To summarize:
INPUT (FORM) TO DDTC ===> time delay from DDTC ===> OUTPUT FROM DDTC
(CJ determination letter).
- We have not been able to see the INPUT
- We have been provided with the OUTPUT
* and the OUTPUT contains little to no actual information in it...
I think this is clear enough for everyone on the -bb to comprehend. So, in
the immortal words of Johnny 5 from the movie Short Circuit "Need INPUT"!
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:10 PM Michelle Thompson <
mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
> None of what you have written here makes sense.
>
> Everything that the US State Department approved for this open source
> amateur radio satellite service CJ Request is already published and
> available for inspection. All of the designs and policies are already
> disclosed to the general public, free of charge. What you keep demanding
> has already been done.
>
> If you won't show your DS-4076 submission packets, then you do not have an
> argument. You have not provided any proof that publishing the work product
> of lawyers without their consent is a positive thing to do. It's just not
> done and it is not material to desperately needed forward progress.
>
> You can keep arguing with AMSAT's *own* consultant's opinions and advice,
> the advice of renowned ITAR/EAR experts hired on recommendation of the EFF,
> and the US State Department, the Department of Defense, and Commerce BIS,
> but honestly that is not the best path forward to create a safe and sane
> volunteer situation for AMSAT.
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:46 AM Joseph Armbruster <
> josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
>
>> 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 344
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
