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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com 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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@amsat.org> wrote:
> Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR > > > https://openresearch.institute/2020/08/18/cj-determination-open-source-satel... > > 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-000312... > . > > 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@openresearch.institute > _______________________________________________ > Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. 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."