Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
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
On 08/18/2020 09:05, Michelle Thompson via AMSAT-BB wrote:
Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
https://openresearch.institute/2020/08/18/cj-determination-open-source-satel...
<snip>
Great news!
Michelle,
That's great news, but isn't that ruling only applicable to the specific system that you asked about (digital microwave broadband...)? It's not a general finding that applies to anything else, right?
Rich, KD2CQ
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 12:24 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
Rich,
The most important thing here is that the DoD finding is *not permission* - it is a finding that your project wasn't *ever* subject to ITAR. This is thus useful to other projects that use the same Open Source strategy.
A finding is useful for risk-reduction, in that you can wave it at the court and annoying FBI folks (they have harassed AMSAT developers in the past) and you can use this one as a precedent if you are making a request for another program in which you use the same strategies.
Thanks
Bruce
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:59 PM Rich Gopstein via AMSAT-BB < amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
Michelle,
That's great news, but isn't that ruling only applicable to the specific system that you asked about (digital microwave broadband...)? It's not a general finding that applies to anything else, right?
Rich, KD2CQ
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 12:24 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
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
Bruce,
Understood, however, the finding is very narrowly scoped - it only says that your system is not covered by ITAR. It doesn't say why. You believe it's related to the open-source nature of your system, however the finding *doesn't say that.*
I worked for 28+ years in a field that was regulated by the US government. We on occasion also asked for findings on various things. We were NEVER allowed to make assumptions about the finding. You could only go by what the finding said. And in your case, it's only that your system is not covered by ITAR - nothing about *why* it's not covered. Because of that, you can't generalize about other systems being covered or not. It may seem illogical, but that's the way the US regulatory system works.
Rich
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:18 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
Rich,
The most important thing here is that the DoD finding is *not permission*
- it is a finding that your project wasn't *ever* subject to ITAR. This
is thus useful to other projects that use the same Open Source strategy.
A finding is useful for risk-reduction, in that you can wave it at the court and annoying FBI folks (they have harassed AMSAT developers in the past) and you can use this one as a precedent if you are making a request for another program in which you use the same strategies.
Thanks BruceOn Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:59 PM Rich Gopstein via AMSAT-BB < amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
Michelle,
That's great news, but isn't that ruling only applicable to the specific system that you asked about (digital microwave broadband...)? It's not a general finding that applies to anything else, right?
Rich, KD2CQ
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 12:24 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
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
-- Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually :-)
We have the actual ITAR rules to tell us about the public knowledge carve-out. We will receive further confirmation when we get a finding from Department of Commerce, and of course every time a project asks for such a finding there will be further confirmation. I don't think it will be necessary to make as few assumptions as you did in your company.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 17:21 Rich Gopstein rich@ourowndomain.com wrote:
Bruce,
Understood, however, the finding is very narrowly scoped - it only says that your system is not covered by ITAR. It doesn't say why. You believe it's related to the open-source nature of your system, however the finding *doesn't say that.*
I worked for 28+ years in a field that was regulated by the US government. We on occasion also asked for findings on various things. We were NEVER allowed to make assumptions about the finding. You could only go by what the finding said. And in your case, it's only that your system is not covered by ITAR - nothing about *why* it's not covered. Because of that, you can't generalize about other systems being covered or not. It may seem illogical, but that's the way the US regulatory system works.
Rich
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:18 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
Rich,
The most important thing here is that the DoD finding is *not permission*
- it is a finding that your project wasn't *ever* subject to ITAR. This
is thus useful to other projects that use the same Open Source strategy.
A finding is useful for risk-reduction, in that you can wave it at the court and annoying FBI folks (they have harassed AMSAT developers in the past) and you can use this one as a precedent if you are making a request for another program in which you use the same strategies.
Thanks BruceOn Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:59 PM Rich Gopstein via AMSAT-BB < amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
Michelle,
That's great news, but isn't that ruling only applicable to the specific system that you asked about (digital microwave broadband...)? It's not a general finding that applies to anything else, right?
Rich, KD2CQ
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 12:24 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
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
-- Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually :-)
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, at 8:56 PM, Bruce Perens via AMSAT-BB wrote:
We have the actual ITAR rules to tell us about the public knowledge carve-out. We will receive further confirmation when we get a finding from Department of Commerce, and of course every time a project asks for such a finding there will be further confirmation. I don't think it will be necessary to make as few assumptions as you did in your company.
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
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 7:27 PM Zach Metzinger via AMSAT-BB < amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
In the past, AMSAT volunteers have had a rude surprise when they were held personally liable for violating ITAR, or so I'm told.
Never happened. What did happen is that one or more AMSAT developers had intimidating interviews with the FBI. I got a direct report from one of the developers. There has never been a court case, which would have been necessary for any person or organization to be held liable for anything.
ORI and AMSAT are both their own corporations. When you are working on behalf of the corporation, and under the direction and its officers, it is the corporation's liability, not your personal liability. That and the ability to collect tax-exempt donations are the only reasons we bother making these organizations formal legal entities at all.
You can insure this sort of risk if the organization has so much to lose that insurance is economical. Another choice is to accept that the organization might go bankrupt if it was fined.
In general we face more risk from the IRS and the states that have granted our charters, over their non-profit rules. If you are an officer of a corporation that is not in good standing, it gets in the way when you want to be an officer of another corporation.
Thanks
Bruce
The finding said nothing about open-source, so I don't understand how you can claim this is a win for open-source.
BTW - I'd be thrilled if this did say something about the use of open-source and ITAR, but it doesn't.
Rich
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 9:56 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
We have the actual ITAR rules to tell us about the public knowledge carve-out. We will receive further confirmation when we get a finding from Department of Commerce, and of course every time a project asks for such a finding there will be further confirmation. I don't think it will be necessary to make as few assumptions as you did in your company.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 17:21 Rich Gopstein rich@ourowndomain.com wrote:
Bruce,
Understood, however, the finding is very narrowly scoped - it only says that your system is not covered by ITAR. It doesn't say why. You believe it's related to the open-source nature of your system, however the finding *doesn't say that.*
I worked for 28+ years in a field that was regulated by the US government. We on occasion also asked for findings on various things. We were NEVER allowed to make assumptions about the finding. You could only go by what the finding said. And in your case, it's only that your system is not covered by ITAR - nothing about *why* it's not covered. Because of that, you can't generalize about other systems being covered or not. It may seem illogical, but that's the way the US regulatory system works.
Rich
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:18 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
Rich,
The most important thing here is that the DoD finding is *not permission* - it is a finding that your project wasn't *ever* subject to ITAR. This is thus useful to other projects that use the same Open Source strategy.
A finding is useful for risk-reduction, in that you can wave it at the court and annoying FBI folks (they have harassed AMSAT developers in the past) and you can use this one as a precedent if you are making a request for another program in which you use the same strategies.
Thanks BruceOn Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:59 PM Rich Gopstein via AMSAT-BB < amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
Michelle,
That's great news, but isn't that ruling only applicable to the specific system that you asked about (digital microwave broadband...)? It's not a general finding that applies to anything else, right?
Rich, KD2CQ
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 12:24 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
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
-- Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually :-)
The application made it plain that our intent was to make the entire satellite design and software Open Source.
It is interesting to note that the government form actually asks if you have any Open Source software in the product.
I will leave it to ORI to decide whom to show the application. I have a copy, but no permission to disclose it.
Thanks
Bruce
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:25 PM Rich Gopstein rich@ourowndomain.com wrote:
The finding said nothing about open-source, so I don't understand how you can claim this is a win for open-source.
BTW - I'd be thrilled if this did say something about the use of open-source and ITAR, but it doesn't.
Rich
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 9:56 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
We have the actual ITAR rules to tell us about the public knowledge carve-out. We will receive further confirmation when we get a finding from Department of Commerce, and of course every time a project asks for such a finding there will be further confirmation. I don't think it will be necessary to make as few assumptions as you did in your company.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 17:21 Rich Gopstein rich@ourowndomain.com wrote:
Bruce,
Understood, however, the finding is very narrowly scoped - it only says that your system is not covered by ITAR. It doesn't say why. You believe it's related to the open-source nature of your system, however the finding *doesn't say that.*
I worked for 28+ years in a field that was regulated by the US government. We on occasion also asked for findings on various things. We were NEVER allowed to make assumptions about the finding. You could only go by what the finding said. And in your case, it's only that your system is not covered by ITAR - nothing about *why* it's not covered. Because of that, you can't generalize about other systems being covered or not. It may seem illogical, but that's the way the US regulatory system works.
Rich
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:18 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
Rich,
The most important thing here is that the DoD finding is *not permission* - it is a finding that your project wasn't *ever* subject to ITAR. This is thus useful to other projects that use the same Open Source strategy.
A finding is useful for risk-reduction, in that you can wave it at the court and annoying FBI folks (they have harassed AMSAT developers in the past) and you can use this one as a precedent if you are making a request for another program in which you use the same strategies.
Thanks BruceOn Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:59 PM Rich Gopstein via AMSAT-BB < amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
Michelle,
That's great news, but isn't that ruling only applicable to the specific system that you asked about (digital microwave broadband...)? It's not a general finding that applies to anything else, right?
Rich, KD2CQ
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 12:24 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
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
-- Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually :-)
I think a recorded talk about the process, the form, and the repercussions would be of interest.
Articles have been requested too.
I think we can get things described fully in relatively short order.
It is a real pleasure to be able to make this announcement. We were prepared for a lengthy, difficult, and expensive appeals process.
The entire application hinged on the public domain carve out use. As mentioned before, the approach was based on the policies Bruce authored.
I don’t want to dump the application on the internet without a clear ok from the firm. I’ll ask (again).
Priority is enabling use of the result, so I am going to go work on that.
I’m very happy about this. Being able to contribute directly to enormous forward progress on such a serious problem for AMSAT has been a highlight.
Ready for the next tough challenge so if you know of any send them my way :D
Michelle W5NYV
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 20:27 Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
The application made it plain that our intent was to make the entire satellite design and software Open Source.
It is interesting to note that the government form actually asks if you have any Open Source software in the product.
I will leave it to ORI to decide whom to show the application. I have a copy, but no permission to disclose it.
Thanks BruceOn Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:25 PM Rich Gopstein rich@ourowndomain.com wrote:
The finding said nothing about open-source, so I don't understand how you can claim this is a win for open-source.
BTW - I'd be thrilled if this did say something about the use of open-source and ITAR, but it doesn't.
Rich
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 9:56 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
We have the actual ITAR rules to tell us about the public knowledge carve-out. We will receive further confirmation when we get a finding from Department of Commerce, and of course every time a project asks for such a finding there will be further confirmation. I don't think it will be necessary to make as few assumptions as you did in your company.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 17:21 Rich Gopstein rich@ourowndomain.com wrote:
Bruce,
Understood, however, the finding is very narrowly scoped - it only says that your system is not covered by ITAR. It doesn't say why. You believe it's related to the open-source nature of your system, however the finding *doesn't say that.*
I worked for 28+ years in a field that was regulated by the US government. We on occasion also asked for findings on various things. We were NEVER allowed to make assumptions about the finding. You could only go by what the finding said. And in your case, it's only that your system is not covered by ITAR - nothing about *why* it's not covered. Because of that, you can't generalize about other systems being covered or not. It may seem illogical, but that's the way the US regulatory system works.
Rich
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:18 PM Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
Rich,
The most important thing here is that the DoD finding is *not permission* - it is a finding that your project wasn't *ever* subject to ITAR. This is thus useful to other projects that use the same Open Source strategy.
A finding is useful for risk-reduction, in that you can wave it at the court and annoying FBI folks (they have harassed AMSAT developers in the past) and you can use this one as a precedent if you are making a request for another program in which you use the same strategies.
Thanks BruceOn Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:59 PM Rich Gopstein via AMSAT-BB < amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
Michelle,
That's great news, but isn't that ruling only applicable to the specific system that you asked about (digital microwave broadband...)? It's not a general finding that applies to anything else, right?
Rich, KD2CQ
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 12:24 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
-- Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually :-)
-- Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually :-)
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:08 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@gmail.com> wrote:
I don’t want to dump the application on the internet without a clear ok from the firm. I’ll ask (again).
It's important to ask the lawyers the right question. Tell them we want to be able to assure people that this is about the Open Source policy, not simply that DoD finds nothing to worry about in our technical description of the satellite. Let them figure out the best way to do that.
It would be a shame for AMSAT to choose not to use this strategy, but mostly for AMSAT. ORI will be using it, and I think it will catch on in colleges.
Thanks
Bruce
Understand, and will do as soon as it can be scheduled.
Thanks so much for all the help.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 21:17 Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:08 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@gmail.com> wrote:
I don’t want to dump the application on the internet without a clear ok from the firm. I’ll ask (again).
It's important to ask the lawyers the right question. Tell them we want to be able to assure people that this is about the Open Source policy, not simply that DoD finds nothing to worry about in our technical description of the satellite. Let them figure out the best way to do that.
It would be a shame for AMSAT to choose not to use this strategy, but mostly for AMSAT. ORI will be using it, and I think it will catch on in colleges.
Thanks Bruce
Michelle,
It would be particularly helpful to ask the lawyers to clarify whether this finding can be directly applied to other open source amateur radio satellite projects. Posting their answer would help us determine whether your result is applicable to our projects.
Rich, KD2CQ
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:34 AM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@gmail.com> wrote:
Understand, and will do as soon as it can be scheduled.
Thanks so much for all the help.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 21:17 Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:08 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@gmail.com> wrote:
I don’t want to dump the application on the internet without a clear ok from the firm. I’ll ask (again).
It's important to ask the lawyers the right question. Tell them we want to be able to assure people that this is about the Open Source policy, not simply that DoD finds nothing to worry about in our technical description of the satellite. Let them figure out the best way to do that.
It would be a shame for AMSAT to choose not to use this strategy, but mostly for AMSAT. ORI will be using it, and I think it will catch on in colleges.
Thanks Bruce
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
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.
Have any of the three that you voted for spent any time putting in the effort that Michelle has done to reach the milestone she has achieved? From their campaign material, all I saw were promises of an HEO satellite which they haven’t been able to provide during their time in office. There was nothing showing that they were making advances on ITAR issues which I is a major roadblock for future spacecraft.
It seems to me that Michelle et al are pushing forward to help create new technologies in a new way. I’m not an EE nor an ITAR expert, but I can easily recognize that I have not seen anyone from within AMSAT even attempting to do what she has so far accomplished with this announcement. If someone from within AMSAT is doing so, they certainly aren’t letting the membership know about it.
Maybe people should just be grateful that someone is willing to put in the work to help move things forward in an innovative manner.
I was not going to turn this news into a political statement but, since Joseph did, I will say that for those that have yet to vote, please consider myself, Howie and Bob. I guarantee that we will work hard to use work such as this to help forward AMSAT’s mission.
Jeff WE4B http://we4bravo.com
Jeff,
Everyone will be grateful, if there's something to be grateful for. All I am asking for is support of the claim that this is, in fact, a milestone. The publicly posted CJ Determination letter, leaves ALL of the critical information out and means nothing, without context. What was in the request, specifically? If you want to claim that this is some huge leap or advance being made on ITAR issues for ORI, AMSAT, or whomever... all I am asking for is a copy of the Form DS-4076, a copy of all supplemental materials and communications with the DOS/DDTC on the matter. This way, everyone in the community can read through and digest what was specifically requested, in order to authenticate the claim. I made an effort to find the information on ORIs website , but nothing came up. I apologize in advance if I missed it...
You say no politics is involved, but I beg to differ. This could be an attempt to say "hey -bb, look how awesome we all are!! we defeated ITAR!!", and then pat each other on the back on the -bb, Right, Before An Election... just to get brownie points with the community, without providing any actual substance. A lot of BB-readers may not be well-informed on the process and incorrectly conclude: "wow, what progress!".
A little transparency could go a long way here.
If what is being claimed is true, then high-five, that's awesome! But, without seeing the request and supplementary info, the determination letter means little to nothing to me personally.
Joseph Armbruster KJ4JIO
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:48 PM Jeff Johns via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
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.
Have any of the three that you voted for spent any time putting in the effort that Michelle has done to reach the milestone she has achieved? From their campaign material, all I saw were promises of an HEO satellite which they haven’t been able to provide during their time in office. There was nothing showing that they were making advances on ITAR issues which I is a major roadblock for future spacecraft.
It seems to me that Michelle et al are pushing forward to help create new technologies in a new way. I’m not an EE nor an ITAR expert, but I can easily recognize that I have not seen anyone from within AMSAT even attempting to do what she has so far accomplished with this announcement. If someone from within AMSAT is doing so, they certainly aren’t letting the membership know about it.
Maybe people should just be grateful that someone is willing to put in the work to help move things forward in an innovative manner.
I was not going to turn this news into a political statement but, since Joseph did, I will say that for those that have yet to vote, please consider myself, Howie and Bob. I guarantee that we will work hard to use work such as this to help forward AMSAT’s mission.
Jeff WE4B http://we4bravo.com _______________________________________________ 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
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."
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."
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."
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."
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."
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."
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@gmail.com> 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@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."
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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@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." > >
participants (7)
-
Bruce Perens -
Jeff Johns -
Jim Walls -
Joseph Armbruster -
Michelle Thompson -
Rich Gopstein -
Zach Metzinger