Re: [amsat-bb] Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
Michelle,
Ok, so just everyone on the BB is entirely clear about what is going on here.
Your team submitted forms to the DDTC, apparently on February 20, 2020. This form that was submitted to the DDTC with the request, has NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC. As a result, we can not read it. This document, that we can not read, has all the verbiage that matters and is the document that the DDTC would have responded to directly.
Previously, you have referenced designs that are publicly available, but we have no way of knowing if the form above actually referenced those designs or not. Again, we (the community) have absolutely no way of knowing or verifying this information, because we can not read the submission.
You publicly announced on the -bb that "Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR" and publicly were willing to share the DDTC response to the forms submitted above, namely the commodity jurisdiction determination. But, we (the community) have no clue what this determination is actually referring to, because we can not read what was being adjudicated.
To summarize:
INPUT (FORM) TO DDTC ===> time delay from DDTC ===> OUTPUT FROM DDTC (CJ determination letter).
- We have not been able to see the INPUT
- We have been provided with the OUTPUT
* and the OUTPUT contains little to no actual information in it...
I think this is clear enough for everyone on the -bb to comprehend. So, in the immortal words of Johnny 5 from the movie Short Circuit "Need INPUT"!
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:10 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@gmail.com> wrote:
None of what you have written here makes sense.
Everything that the US State Department approved for this open source amateur radio satellite service CJ Request is already published and available for inspection. All of the designs and policies are already disclosed to the general public, free of charge. What you keep demanding has already been done.
If you won't show your DS-4076 submission packets, then you do not have an argument. You have not provided any proof that publishing the work product of lawyers without their consent is a positive thing to do. It's just not done and it is not material to desperately needed forward progress.
You can keep arguing with AMSAT's *own* consultant's opinions and advice, the advice of renowned ITAR/EAR experts hired on recommendation of the EFF, and the US State Department, the Department of Defense, and Commerce BIS, but honestly that is not the best path forward to create a safe and sane volunteer situation for AMSAT.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:46 AM Joseph Armbruster < josepharmbruster@gmail.com> wrote:
Michelle,
There's a major, major difference between what you are trying to accomplish from an 'open and transparency' perspective and what your average commercial business would do (or AMSAT would likely do, with NDAs in place...)
There's no need for me to publish any of my companies info, because this is not really about my business. I did not release an email to the -bb with the title "Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR". That's quite a claim and mama didn't raise no fool here and I know the devil's always in the details with these kinds of things. And we haven't been provided with any of the details yet, only claims of success! I know, with absolute certainty, that you can have an "open source design", alllllll you want, composed of specific hardware components that may only be available to US Persons, you can publish it here, there and everywhere! However, if you attempted to put the hardware in a box and ship it outside the US for integration, without an export permit, you can get into major trouble. Private companies that develop products and/or offer services for others typically work under NDAs and they have unique IP interests (designs, business relationships, etc...) that they wish to protect/keep secret. If that kind of information is included in the CJ request, it's up to the submitter to serve their agreements and protect the information (if-so-agreed-upon).
From what i've observed, what you're trying to do is the polar opposite. It's suppose to be about open source, becoming free of ITAR, serving the amateur radio community, making all the designs public and free of IP constraints and most importantly, being transparent about the process (.... and you all seem to use the noble term "Transparency", quite a bit... ref previous -bb emails...). If all the designs are public and there's no IP to protect, why would the CJ request need to be kept private? The request that was submitted and adjudicated, contained specific words, likely referenced specific designs, that may or may not have referenced any of the designs that you are referring to. It's impossible for any of us to make any sense of your release, or substantiate Any of the claims, without it. This is the difference in my opinion. You're obviously not going to find any other companies submissions around, because they are by-nature, focused on secrecy and protecting IP, not doing charitable work. Yours on the other hand, should be about transparency to the open source / amateur community, not about secrecy and protecting whatever it is...
And, you may say that what i'm asking for is something the "law firm specifically advised against doing"... but we all know that's just silly... Anyone here on the-bb can look up the exact form and see what data is requested on it. There is nothing that any open source guru wouldn't be more than willing to disclose publicly.
That's my 10 cents,
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:03 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@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." >>> >>>
Yes, those are the referenced designs.
Yes, the input is available for public inspection, as per ITAR 120.11. It's all our designs and policies. Yes, you can read them all without impediment.
There are no other designs or policies, other than what we've published.
The output is available for public inspection, as a final determination letter.
Just like at your own company, the specific work product of the law firm hired to assist is confidential. This is ordinary and customary. It's neither a red flag nor unusual in any way. Just like at your own company, the final determination letter is the crucial part. It's what you get and what you use.
You have provided no evidence that the submission packet is ever published by anyone. Go argue with the State Department about this, not me.
However, even though it would be unique, I've said I would try to get this released. I'll write an article after the meeting.
There's a bright future ahead of us. It's a real honor to be able to help here.
Thank you to those that gave me your support in order to be able to accomplish this. It will make a large positive difference.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:36 PM Joseph Armbruster < josepharmbruster@gmail.com> wrote:
Michelle,
Ok, so just everyone on the BB is entirely clear about what is going on here.
Your team submitted forms to the DDTC, apparently on February 20, 2020. This form that was submitted to the DDTC with the request, has NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC. As a result, we can not read it. This document, that we can not read, has all the verbiage that matters and is the document that the DDTC would have responded to directly.
Previously, you have referenced designs that are publicly available, but we have no way of knowing if the form above actually referenced those designs or not. Again, we (the community) have absolutely no way of knowing or verifying this information, because we can not read the submission.
You publicly announced on the -bb that "Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR" and publicly were willing to share the DDTC response to the forms submitted above, namely the commodity jurisdiction determination. But, we (the community) have no clue what this determination is actually referring to, because we can not read what was being adjudicated.
To summarize:
INPUT (FORM) TO DDTC ===> time delay from DDTC ===> OUTPUT FROM DDTC (CJ determination letter).
We have not been able to see the INPUT
We have been provided with the OUTPUT
- and the OUTPUT contains little to no actual information in it...
I think this is clear enough for everyone on the -bb to comprehend. So, in the immortal words of Johnny 5 from the movie Short Circuit "Need INPUT"!
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:10 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@gmail.com> wrote:
None of what you have written here makes sense.
Everything that the US State Department approved for this open source amateur radio satellite service CJ Request is already published and available for inspection. All of the designs and policies are already disclosed to the general public, free of charge. What you keep demanding has already been done.
If you won't show your DS-4076 submission packets, then you do not have an argument. You have not provided any proof that publishing the work product of lawyers without their consent is a positive thing to do. It's just not done and it is not material to desperately needed forward progress.
You can keep arguing with AMSAT's *own* consultant's opinions and advice, the advice of renowned ITAR/EAR experts hired on recommendation of the EFF, and the US State Department, the Department of Defense, and Commerce BIS, but honestly that is not the best path forward to create a safe and sane volunteer situation for AMSAT.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:46 AM Joseph Armbruster < josepharmbruster@gmail.com> wrote:
Michelle,
There's a major, major difference between what you are trying to accomplish from an 'open and transparency' perspective and what your average commercial business would do (or AMSAT would likely do, with NDAs in place...)
There's no need for me to publish any of my companies info, because this is not really about my business. I did not release an email to the -bb with the title "Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR". That's quite a claim and mama didn't raise no fool here and I know the devil's always in the details with these kinds of things. And we haven't been provided with any of the details yet, only claims of success! I know, with absolute certainty, that you can have an "open source design", alllllll you want, composed of specific hardware components that may only be available to US Persons, you can publish it here, there and everywhere! However, if you attempted to put the hardware in a box and ship it outside the US for integration, without an export permit, you can get into major trouble. Private companies that develop products and/or offer services for others typically work under NDAs and they have unique IP interests (designs, business relationships, etc...) that they wish to protect/keep secret. If that kind of information is included in the CJ request, it's up to the submitter to serve their agreements and protect the information (if-so-agreed-upon).
From what i've observed, what you're trying to do is the polar opposite. It's suppose to be about open source, becoming free of ITAR, serving the amateur radio community, making all the designs public and free of IP constraints and most importantly, being transparent about the process (.... and you all seem to use the noble term "Transparency", quite a bit... ref previous -bb emails...). If all the designs are public and there's no IP to protect, why would the CJ request need to be kept private? The request that was submitted and adjudicated, contained specific words, likely referenced specific designs, that may or may not have referenced any of the designs that you are referring to. It's impossible for any of us to make any sense of your release, or substantiate Any of the claims, without it. This is the difference in my opinion. You're obviously not going to find any other companies submissions around, because they are by-nature, focused on secrecy and protecting IP, not doing charitable work. Yours on the other hand, should be about transparency to the open source / amateur community, not about secrecy and protecting whatever it is...
And, you may say that what i'm asking for is something the "law firm specifically advised against doing"... but we all know that's just silly... Anyone here on the-bb can look up the exact form and see what data is requested on it. There is nothing that any open source guru wouldn't be more than willing to disclose publicly.
That's my 10 cents,
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:03 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@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." >>>> >>>>
Michelle,
There's nothing unique in this case about releasing it. In fact, I would argue that it should have been provided to the AMSAT -bb community, back in February, BEFORE being submitted to the DDTC, so that we could know what was being sent in, the intent and what was coming down the pipe... I mean, that would have been the most transparent way to handle this...
And now, for some reason, you have to seek permission from a third party, to release a DDTC form submission that you should have full right, title and interest to...?
You keep saying "Thank you to those that gave me your support in order to be able to accomplish this." and patting yourself on the back.... Do people actually buy into this stuff?! I'm too pragmattic for that, I need evidence and NONE has been provided. Noone on the -bb right now, has any way of knowing if Anything was actually accomplished here.
I will standby for your public release of the form, so all of us on the -bb can learn about what we are actually celebrating and if there is even a reason to be celebrating.
Joseph Armbruster KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:59 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, those are the referenced designs.
Yes, the input is available for public inspection, as per ITAR 120.11. It's all our designs and policies. Yes, you can read them all without impediment.
There are no other designs or policies, other than what we've published.
The output is available for public inspection, as a final determination letter.
Just like at your own company, the specific work product of the law firm hired to assist is confidential. This is ordinary and customary. It's neither a red flag nor unusual in any way. Just like at your own company, the final determination letter is the crucial part. It's what you get and what you use.
You have provided no evidence that the submission packet is ever published by anyone. Go argue with the State Department about this, not me.
However, even though it would be unique, I've said I would try to get this released. I'll write an article after the meeting.
There's a bright future ahead of us. It's a real honor to be able to help here.
Thank you to those that gave me your support in order to be able to accomplish this. It will make a large positive difference.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:36 PM Joseph Armbruster < josepharmbruster@gmail.com> wrote:
Michelle,
Ok, so just everyone on the BB is entirely clear about what is going on here.
Your team submitted forms to the DDTC, apparently on February 20, 2020. This form that was submitted to the DDTC with the request, has NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC. As a result, we can not read it. This document, that we can not read, has all the verbiage that matters and is the document that the DDTC would have responded to directly.
Previously, you have referenced designs that are publicly available, but we have no way of knowing if the form above actually referenced those designs or not. Again, we (the community) have absolutely no way of knowing or verifying this information, because we can not read the submission.
You publicly announced on the -bb that "Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR" and publicly were willing to share the DDTC response to the forms submitted above, namely the commodity jurisdiction determination. But, we (the community) have no clue what this determination is actually referring to, because we can not read what was being adjudicated.
To summarize:
INPUT (FORM) TO DDTC ===> time delay from DDTC ===> OUTPUT FROM DDTC (CJ determination letter).
We have not been able to see the INPUT
We have been provided with the OUTPUT
- and the OUTPUT contains little to no actual information in it...
I think this is clear enough for everyone on the -bb to comprehend. So, in the immortal words of Johnny 5 from the movie Short Circuit "Need INPUT"!
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:10 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@gmail.com> wrote:
None of what you have written here makes sense.
Everything that the US State Department approved for this open source amateur radio satellite service CJ Request is already published and available for inspection. All of the designs and policies are already disclosed to the general public, free of charge. What you keep demanding has already been done.
If you won't show your DS-4076 submission packets, then you do not have an argument. You have not provided any proof that publishing the work product of lawyers without their consent is a positive thing to do. It's just not done and it is not material to desperately needed forward progress.
You can keep arguing with AMSAT's *own* consultant's opinions and advice, the advice of renowned ITAR/EAR experts hired on recommendation of the EFF, and the US State Department, the Department of Defense, and Commerce BIS, but honestly that is not the best path forward to create a safe and sane volunteer situation for AMSAT.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:46 AM Joseph Armbruster < josepharmbruster@gmail.com> wrote:
Michelle,
There's a major, major difference between what you are trying to accomplish from an 'open and transparency' perspective and what your average commercial business would do (or AMSAT would likely do, with NDAs in place...)
There's no need for me to publish any of my companies info, because this is not really about my business. I did not release an email to the -bb with the title "Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR". That's quite a claim and mama didn't raise no fool here and I know the devil's always in the details with these kinds of things. And we haven't been provided with any of the details yet, only claims of success! I know, with absolute certainty, that you can have an "open source design", alllllll you want, composed of specific hardware components that may only be available to US Persons, you can publish it here, there and everywhere! However, if you attempted to put the hardware in a box and ship it outside the US for integration, without an export permit, you can get into major trouble. Private companies that develop products and/or offer services for others typically work under NDAs and they have unique IP interests (designs, business relationships, etc...) that they wish to protect/keep secret. If that kind of information is included in the CJ request, it's up to the submitter to serve their agreements and protect the information (if-so-agreed-upon).
From what i've observed, what you're trying to do is the polar opposite. It's suppose to be about open source, becoming free of ITAR, serving the amateur radio community, making all the designs public and free of IP constraints and most importantly, being transparent about the process (.... and you all seem to use the noble term "Transparency", quite a bit... ref previous -bb emails...). If all the designs are public and there's no IP to protect, why would the CJ request need to be kept private? The request that was submitted and adjudicated, contained specific words, likely referenced specific designs, that may or may not have referenced any of the designs that you are referring to. It's impossible for any of us to make any sense of your release, or substantiate Any of the claims, without it. This is the difference in my opinion. You're obviously not going to find any other companies submissions around, because they are by-nature, focused on secrecy and protecting IP, not doing charitable work. Yours on the other hand, should be about transparency to the open source / amateur community, not about secrecy and protecting whatever it is...
And, you may say that what i'm asking for is something the "law firm specifically advised against doing"... but we all know that's just silly... Anyone here on the-bb can look up the exact form and see what data is requested on it. There is nothing that any open source guru wouldn't be more than willing to disclose publicly.
That's my 10 cents,
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:03 PM Michelle Thompson < mountain.michelle@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." >>>>> >>>>>
Joseph wrote:
I would argue that it should have been provided to the AMSAT -bb
community, back in February, BEFORE being submitted to the DDTC
AMSAT was asked to participate and did not respond. I personally tried to get ARRL to participate, and unfortunately getting board items on the agenda and voted upon takes a long time, and they were tied up with having fired their CEO and deciding how to go forward.
Thanks
Bruce
Really, Joseph, we get your point. Give your typing fingers a rest.
Steve AI9IN
----- Original Message ----- From: Joseph Armbruster via AMSAT-BB (amsat-bb@amsat.org) Date: 08/19/20 17:47 To: Michelle Thompson (mountain.michelle@gmail.com) Cc: AMSAT BB (amsat-bb@amsat.org) Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Open Source Satellite Work Determined to be Free of ITAR
Michelle,
Ok, so just everyone on the BB is entirely clear about what is going on here.
participants (4)
-
Bruce Perens -
Joseph Armbruster -
Michelle Thompson -
Steve Kristoff