We still have a serious lack of presentations on the Eagle and Intelsat programs. Tom Clark has promised some sort of paper but I have not received proposals from anyone else involved in these flagship projects. The symposium at this point will be all about student built satellites and how to work AO-51 with your HT.
Eagle team members, please let me know very soon if you have any plans to contribute a paper to this year's symposium.
Dan Schultz N8FGV
Dan:
I have nothing constructive to contribute.
Dick Jansson, KD1K [email protected] [email protected]
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Schultz Sent: Saturday, 06 September, 2008 15:17 To: [email protected] Subject: [eagle] 2008 Symposium deadline
We still have a serious lack of presentations on the Eagle and Intelsat programs. Tom Clark has promised some sort of paper but I have not received proposals from anyone else involved in these flagship projects. The symposium at this point will be all about student built satellites and how to work AO-51 with your HT.
Eagle team members, please let me know very soon if you have any plans to contribute a paper to this year's symposium.
Dan Schultz N8FGV
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Dan --
Understand that I mean nothing controversial by saying this, but it's very unclear what the status of the Eagle and/or Intelsat projects *is*. There's potentially a lot to say, but hard to know whether any of it is pertinent at this point.
I was prepared to deliver a paper on AMSAT-specific aspects of the same topic (Delay Tolerant Networking) that I wrote up for DCC. The gist of the paper was an outline of the specific implementation of a comprehensive text-messaging service for Eagle. Given the current level of uncertainty even about *who* the teams are, and the ambient level of acrimony in the membership, it's questionable whether the time is worth spending.
73 Frank AB2KT
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Schultz [email protected] wrote:
We still have a serious lack of presentations on the Eagle and Intelsat programs. Tom Clark has promised some sort of paper but I have not received proposals from anyone else involved in these flagship projects. The symposium at this point will be all about student built satellites and how to work AO-51 with your HT.
Eagle team members, please let me know very soon if you have any plans to contribute a paper to this year's symposium.
Dan Schultz N8FGV
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Hello Frank!
I don't mind being controversial :-)
My take on all things AMSAT for the past couple of years is:
1) ITAR prevents us from any meaningful exchange of ideas, projects or design with any non-U.S. citizen. While there are ways to do this, they assume very deep pockets and a large full-time staff devoted to satisfying unreasonable, unrealistic and arbitrary government demands.
Feedback from meetings with people who ought to know strongly suggest that while Amateur satellites are not the intent of the ITAR rules (duh!), absolutely no one in a position to help us is willing to go on record with that interpretation.
The practical result is that ITAR has killed the IHU3 since it was dependent on cooperation from a non-NA group. P3E and whatever Eagle was to have been were dependent on the IHU3. The impact is pretty easy to extrapolate.
2) For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making a presentation at any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most general. If there is technical content, we have to be ready to cite chapter and verse of the publicly available source of anything we utter that might be construed as potentially revealing of any level of technology that might possibly be applied to any spacecraft in orbit or supporting such a spacecraft on the ground.
Unless of course we clear the building of all non-U.S. citizens.
Sigh.
73,
Lyle KK7P (who now does terrestrial stuff)
Hi Lyle et al,
- For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making
a presentation at any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most general.
I am definitely no lawyer, but I thought that there was specific exemption in the definition of "public domain" in 22 CFR 120.11(6):
"Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public in the United States"
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/22cfr120.11.htm
Cheers, Howard G6LVB
Hello Howard!
- For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making
a presentation at any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most general.
I am definitely no lawyer, but I thought that there was specific exemption in the definition of "public domain" in 22 CFR 120.11(6):
"Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public in the United States"
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/22cfr120.11.htm
Neither am I. My understanding is that if the purpose of the public disclosure is to circumvent ITAR (e.g., like selling your business for $1 before a divorce to prevent your spouse from getting it) then you are still in deep doo-doo (whatever the lawyerese for deep doo-doo is).
--
I did not mean to stir up a hornet's nest. I am no expert on this. I was just giving my distorted perspective and explaining why I am no longer active and not writing a paper for the Symposium.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Hello Howard, et al,
I'm trying to get the BOD to focus on getting ITAR understood and to resolve a set of guidelines for the technical teams,
I must agree with your comments about "public domain". In the AMSAT BWI meeting, that was the tact determined we should use
Here's the references in ITAR for everyone to read:
The stuff is on the web at:
http://pmddtc.state.gov/official_itar_and_amendments.htm
_Read 120.10 Technical Data especially (5) and then read 120.11 Public Domain_
I still believe our comments at BWI concerning putting our work in the public domain are valid.
Then look at _121.1 Category XV_ - Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment ESPECIALLY the NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a) and ask yourself - - are our satellites intended for use by the armed forces of any foreign country? The way I read it, if they aren't, the paragraph doesn't apply to us and the rest of the stuff that follows doesn't fit us.
Now this is not a legal opinion since I'm no ITAR lawyer, but we have to quit running scared regarding ITAR since we know we aren't munitions manufacturers or exporters, so let's focus on the statements that would exclude us.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Howard Long wrote:
Hi Lyle et al,
- For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making
a presentation at any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most general.
I am definitely no lawyer, but I thought that there was specific exemption in the definition of "public domain" in 22 CFR 120.11(6):
"Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public in the United States"
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/22cfr120.11.htm
Cheers, Howard G6LVB
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Since this is central to the operation of AMSAT, why not generate a list of questions and allocate $2500 for hiring a lawyer specializing in export law to answer them? This is a project that seems to have very high priority so it should be funded and a board member appointed to run it.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Ress" [email protected] To: "Howard Long" [email protected] Cc: "'Frank Brickle'" [email protected]; [email protected]; "'Daniel Schultz'" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 15:08 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
Hello Howard, et al,
I'm trying to get the BOD to focus on getting ITAR understood and to resolve a set of guidelines for the technical teams,
I must agree with your comments about "public domain". In the AMSAT BWI meeting, that was the tact determined we should use
Here's the references in ITAR for everyone to read:
The stuff is on the web at:
http://pmddtc.state.gov/official_itar_and_amendments.htm
_Read 120.10 Technical Data especially (5) and then read 120.11 Public Domain_
I still believe our comments at BWI concerning putting our work in the public domain are valid.
Then look at _121.1 Category XV_ - Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment ESPECIALLY the NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a) and ask yourself - - are our satellites intended for use by the armed forces of any foreign country? The way I read it, if they aren't, the paragraph doesn't apply to us and the rest of the stuff that follows doesn't fit us.
Now this is not a legal opinion since I'm no ITAR lawyer, but we have to quit running scared regarding ITAR since we know we aren't munitions manufacturers or exporters, so let's focus on the statements that would exclude us.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Howard Long wrote:
Hi Lyle et al,
- For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making
a presentation at any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most general.
I am definitely no lawyer, but I thought that there was specific exemption in the definition of "public domain" in 22 CFR 120.11(6):
"Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public in the United States"
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/22cfr120.11.htm
Cheers, Howard G6LVB
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
John
I understand that in the past year, AMSAT has paid a lawyer to provide some answers. I don't know what questions he was presented or what his qualifications were but nothing conclusive or useful appears to have come out of the effort. Perhaps another round is needed, but then as far as I can read, the language in the ITAR is really rather clear. Maybe we just need an attorney to confirm it or to contact State for their opinion since we're paying for them already.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
John B. Stephensen wrote:
Since this is central to the operation of AMSAT, why not generate a list of questions and allocate $2500 for hiring a lawyer specializing in export law to answer them? This is a project that seems to have very high priority so it should be funded and a board member appointed to run it.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Ress" [email protected] To: "Howard Long" [email protected] Cc: "'Frank Brickle'" [email protected]; [email protected]; "'Daniel Schultz'" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 15:08 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
Hello Howard, et al,
I'm trying to get the BOD to focus on getting ITAR understood and to resolve a set of guidelines for the technical teams,
I must agree with your comments about "public domain". In the AMSAT BWI meeting, that was the tact determined we should use
Here's the references in ITAR for everyone to read:
The stuff is on the web at:
http://pmddtc.state.gov/official_itar_and_amendments.htm
_Read 120.10 Technical Data especially (5) and then read 120.11 Public Domain_
I still believe our comments at BWI concerning putting our work in the public domain are valid.
Then look at _121.1 Category XV_ - Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment ESPECIALLY the NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a) and ask yourself - - are our satellites intended for use by the armed forces of any foreign country? The way I read it, if they aren't, the paragraph doesn't apply to us and the rest of the stuff that follows doesn't fit us.
Now this is not a legal opinion since I'm no ITAR lawyer, but we have to quit running scared regarding ITAR since we know we aren't munitions manufacturers or exporters, so let's focus on the statements that would exclude us.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Howard Long wrote:
Hi Lyle et al,
- For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making
a presentation at any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most general.
I am definitely no lawyer, but I thought that there was specific exemption in the definition of "public domain" in 22 CFR 120.11(6):
"Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public in the United States"
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/22cfr120.11.htm
Cheers, Howard G6LVB
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
I just read ITAR for the first time (I had lawyer to read and interpret it in the past) and it's clear that although commercial and research satellites are not SME they are still defense articles and therefore covered by ITAR. I interpret the public domain exemption as giving permission to disclose previously published information rather than publish new information.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Ress" [email protected] To: "Howard Long" [email protected] Cc: "'Frank Brickle'" [email protected]; [email protected]; "'Daniel Schultz'" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 15:08 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
Hello Howard, et al,
I'm trying to get the BOD to focus on getting ITAR understood and to resolve a set of guidelines for the technical teams,
I must agree with your comments about "public domain". In the AMSAT BWI meeting, that was the tact determined we should use
Here's the references in ITAR for everyone to read:
The stuff is on the web at:
http://pmddtc.state.gov/official_itar_and_amendments.htm
_Read 120.10 Technical Data especially (5) and then read 120.11 Public Domain_
I still believe our comments at BWI concerning putting our work in the public domain are valid.
Then look at _121.1 Category XV_ - Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment ESPECIALLY the NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a) and ask yourself - - are our satellites intended for use by the armed forces of any foreign country? The way I read it, if they aren't, the paragraph doesn't apply to us and the rest of the stuff that follows doesn't fit us.
Now this is not a legal opinion since I'm no ITAR lawyer, but we have to quit running scared regarding ITAR since we know we aren't munitions manufacturers or exporters, so let's focus on the statements that would exclude us.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Howard Long wrote:
Hi Lyle et al,
- For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making
a presentation at any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most general.
I am definitely no lawyer, but I thought that there was specific exemption in the definition of "public domain" in 22 CFR 120.11(6):
"Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public in the United States"
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/22cfr120.11.htm
Cheers, Howard G6LVB
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Why do you not think we have already done this?
We have done this and we paid significantly more than $2500 and we got lots of opinions and no action.
When it became completely clear that we could not write a technical assistance agreement with our partners in AMSAT-UK and AMSAT-DL that would match the letter of ITAR, we in the leadership gave up rather than walk down the tougher road of getting specific exemptions for activities such as ours.
We could have and should have done this for the "good of the human race". Even then, almost surely, people working in the industry would have their activities severely curtailed by agreements and restrictions placed on them by their employers.
There are no alternatives. This must get settled and legally.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 7:23 PM To: Bill Ress; Howard Long Cc: 'Frank Brickle'; [email protected]; 'Daniel Schultz' Subject: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
Since this is central to the operation of AMSAT, why not generate a list of questions and allocate $2500 for hiring a lawyer specializing in export law to answer them? This is a project that seems to have very high priority so it should be funded and a board member appointed to run it.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Ress" [email protected] To: "Howard Long" [email protected] Cc: "'Frank Brickle'" [email protected]; [email protected]; "'Daniel Schultz'" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 15:08 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
Hello Howard, et al,
I'm trying to get the BOD to focus on getting ITAR understood and to resolve a set of guidelines for the technical teams,
I must agree with your comments about "public domain". In the AMSAT BWI meeting, that was the tact determined we should use
Here's the references in ITAR for everyone to read:
The stuff is on the web at:
http://pmddtc.state.gov/official_itar_and_amendments.htm
_Read 120.10 Technical Data especially (5) and then read 120.11 Public Domain_
I still believe our comments at BWI concerning putting our work in the public domain are valid.
Then look at _121.1 Category XV_ - Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment ESPECIALLY the NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a) and ask yourself - - are our satellites intended for use by the armed forces of any foreign country? The way I read it, if they aren't, the paragraph doesn't apply to us and the rest of the stuff that follows doesn't fit us.
Now this is not a legal opinion since I'm no ITAR lawyer, but we have to quit running scared regarding ITAR since we know we aren't munitions manufacturers or exporters, so let's focus on the statements that would exclude us.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Howard Long wrote:
Hi Lyle et al,
- For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making
a presentation at any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most general.
I am definitely no lawyer, but I thought that there was specific exemption in the definition of "public domain" in 22 CFR 120.11(6):
"Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public in the United States"
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/22cfr120.11.htm
Cheers, Howard G6LVB
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 10:31 -0400, Bob McGwier wrote:
Why do you not think we have already done this?
I've certainly had the impression that the issue was being worked on some level, but I don't recall seeing anything like a report or summary of the current situation. Did I miss it somewhere, or is this assumption simply the result of not everyone knowing what has and has not been done on the ITAR topic?
73 - Bdale, KB0G
We paid extremely high powered lawyers in D.C. to give us advice. The chief executive worked for hours with a lawyer, who is a member of AMSAT, who put himself into the same committees and so forth as the other high powered lawyers. Detailed technical assistance agreements complying with the letter of ITAR were drawn up and rejected by AMSAT-UK and AMSAT-DL with cause. It is UTTERLY ridiculous to bind entities outside the U.S., not acting in the U.S., to obey our laws when they are not in the U.S. Strictly speaking, we are requiring them to foreswear ever even accidentally doing an exported, DEEMED EXPORT being the most aggregious example.
Following this failure, I am not aware of any other activity. We made no unofficial or official requests of anyone in a position of authority inside the U.S. government who could help us officially.
To saw we have done nothing is false. We have not been effective and knowing this was a very tough nut to crack, the board and senior-officers did not do their duty, which was to bring out a no holds barred assault on this. Some are afraid of getting ourselves above "see" level and attracting the wrong kind of attention to past activities.
I have been quite upset about the lack of progress on this for some time but I am as guilty as anyone in a position of responsibility in this organization for not doing whatever it took to work this. I understood how utterly debilitating this was. Every time I have said something about it, I have been effectively ignored or asked "what do you suggest?". In other words, we have stopped trying.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: Bdale Garbee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 11:53 AM To: Bob McGwier Cc: 'John B. Stephensen'; 'Bill Ress'; 'Howard Long'; 'Frank Brickle'; [email protected]; 'Daniel Schultz' Subject: Re: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 10:31 -0400, Bob McGwier wrote:
Why do you not think we have already done this?
I've certainly had the impression that the issue was being worked on some level, but I don't recall seeing anything like a report or summary of the current situation. Did I miss it somewhere, or is this assumption simply the result of not everyone knowing what has and has not been done on the ITAR topic?
73 - Bdale, KB0G
What led me to beleive that nothing had been done is that there is no published policy regarding ITAR and others seem to be confused about its requirements.
Ten years ago, I worked with my employer's contracts manager and an outside attorney to come up with a policy for the development of encryption software for their products. Since they wanted to sell in the U.S. and Europe, including government customers, this ended up being complicated. A big problem is that the federal regulations are only part of the law. The rest is precidents set by rulings in federal court. Consequently, all he could tell us about some schemes to divide up development resources worldwide to comply with the law was that it was a "gray area" and untested in court. After 4-5 iterations we ended up with a written policy. We did have to force foreign nationals in overseas subsidiaries to comply with U.S. law.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob McGwier" [email protected] To: "'Bdale Garbee'" [email protected] Cc: "'John B. Stephensen'" [email protected]; "'Bill Ress'" [email protected]; "'Howard Long'" [email protected]; "'Frank Brickle'" [email protected]; [email protected]; "'Daniel Schultz'" [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 16:11 UTC Subject: RE: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
We paid extremely high powered lawyers in D.C. to give us advice. The chief executive worked for hours with a lawyer, who is a member of AMSAT, who put himself into the same committees and so forth as the other high powered lawyers. Detailed technical assistance agreements complying with the letter of ITAR were drawn up and rejected by AMSAT-UK and AMSAT-DL with cause. It is UTTERLY ridiculous to bind entities outside the U.S., not acting in the U.S., to obey our laws when they are not in the U.S. Strictly speaking, we are requiring them to foreswear ever even accidentally doing an exported, DEEMED EXPORT being the most aggregious example.
Following this failure, I am not aware of any other activity. We made no unofficial or official requests of anyone in a position of authority inside the U.S. government who could help us officially.
To saw we have done nothing is false. We have not been effective and knowing this was a very tough nut to crack, the board and senior-officers did not do their duty, which was to bring out a no holds barred assault on this. Some are afraid of getting ourselves above "see" level and attracting the wrong kind of attention to past activities.
I have been quite upset about the lack of progress on this for some time but I am as guilty as anyone in a position of responsibility in this organization for not doing whatever it took to work this. I understood how utterly debilitating this was. Every time I have said something about it, I have been effectively ignored or asked "what do you suggest?". In other words, we have stopped trying.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: Bdale Garbee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 11:53 AM To: Bob McGwier Cc: 'John B. Stephensen'; 'Bill Ress'; 'Howard Long'; 'Frank Brickle'; [email protected]; 'Daniel Schultz' Subject: Re: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 10:31 -0400, Bob McGwier wrote:
Why do you not think we have already done this?
I've certainly had the impression that the issue was being worked on some level, but I don't recall seeing anything like a report or summary of the current situation. Did I miss it somewhere, or is this assumption simply the result of not everyone knowing what has and has not been done on the ITAR topic?
73 - Bdale, KB0G
We do not have a leg to stand on to force anyone to do anything overseas. We do not own AMSAT-UK or AMSAT-DL and we have not been in the driver's seat in decades. We don't get the launches. Our best efforts here to get a launch for a full satellite have produced lots of heat, some excitement but no light at the end of the tunnel. So the "force them" will not work here, nor will getting on knees and begging. It is simply not in their interests to sign a TAA that conforms to the rules.
There is a kind of air of secrecy built up here. It is that way for multiple reasons but the ones that I can be kindest to are the fear of making enough noise that we begin to be looked at in a serious way for our decades of not having so much as a written policy much less compliance (other than "EFF IT"), and we do not want to say or do anything that would offend our overseas compatriots while we are trying to work out the details. There are less constructive things I might comment on but the two I have named are credible and serious.
It is hard. Period. It is not easy. But it is so important that anything that resembles giving up is contrary to the needs of the organization. For my part in this dereliction, I most sincerely apologize.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: John B. Stephensen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:25 PM To: Bob McGwier; 'Bdale Garbee' Cc: 'Bill Ress'; 'Howard Long'; 'Frank Brickle'; [email protected]; 'Daniel Schultz' Subject: Re: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
What led me to beleive that nothing had been done is that there is no published policy regarding ITAR and others seem to be confused about its requirements.
Ten years ago, I worked with my employer's contracts manager and an outside attorney to come up with a policy for the development of encryption software
for their products. Since they wanted to sell in the U.S. and Europe, including government customers, this ended up being complicated. A big problem is that the federal regulations are only part of the law. The rest is precidents set by rulings in federal court. Consequently, all he could tell us about some schemes to divide up development resources worldwide to comply with the law was that it was a "gray area" and untested in court. After 4-5 iterations we ended up with a written policy. We did have to force
foreign nationals in overseas subsidiaries to comply with U.S. law.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob McGwier" [email protected] To: "'Bdale Garbee'" [email protected] Cc: "'John B. Stephensen'" [email protected]; "'Bill Ress'" [email protected]; "'Howard Long'" [email protected]; "'Frank Brickle'" [email protected]; [email protected]; "'Daniel Schultz'" [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 16:11 UTC Subject: RE: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
We paid extremely high powered lawyers in D.C. to give us advice. The chief executive worked for hours with a lawyer, who is a member of AMSAT, who put himself into the same committees and so forth as the other high powered lawyers. Detailed technical assistance agreements complying with the letter of ITAR were drawn up and rejected by AMSAT-UK and AMSAT-DL with cause. It is UTTERLY ridiculous to bind entities outside the U.S., not acting in the U.S., to obey our laws when they are not in the U.S. Strictly speaking, we are requiring them to foreswear ever even accidentally doing an exported, DEEMED EXPORT being the most aggregious example.
Following this failure, I am not aware of any other activity. We made no unofficial or official requests of anyone in a position of authority inside the U.S. government who could help us officially.
To saw we have done nothing is false. We have not been effective and knowing this was a very tough nut to crack, the board and senior-officers did not do their duty, which was to bring out a no holds barred assault on this. Some are afraid of getting ourselves above "see" level and attracting the wrong kind of attention to past activities.
I have been quite upset about the lack of progress on this for some time but I am as guilty as anyone in a position of responsibility in this organization for not doing whatever it took to work this. I understood how utterly debilitating this was. Every time I have said something about it, I have been effectively ignored or asked "what do you suggest?". In other words, we have stopped trying.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: Bdale Garbee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 11:53 AM To: Bob McGwier Cc: 'John B. Stephensen'; 'Bill Ress'; 'Howard Long'; 'Frank Brickle'; [email protected]; 'Daniel Schultz' Subject: Re: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 10:31 -0400, Bob McGwier wrote:
Why do you not think we have already done this?
I've certainly had the impression that the issue was being worked on some level, but I don't recall seeing anything like a report or summary of the current situation. Did I miss it somewhere, or is this assumption simply the result of not everyone knowing what has and has not been done on the ITAR topic?
73 - Bdale, KB0G
Precisely, an opinion is all you have.
Opinions are like the place we remove waste material from our bodies. Everyone has one and they are almost always full of the usual stuff.
We need OFFICIAL cover in writing There is no way around this. The lack of this has crippled us. We have been denied the best and the brightest in amateur radio in more than just my opinion for the entire time this has been an issue. Some of us have significantly overextended ourselves in this area and we cannot and will not do it anymore.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Howard Long Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 10:45 AM To: 'Lyle Johnson'; 'Frank Brickle' Cc: [email protected]; 'Daniel Schultz' Subject: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
Hi Lyle et al,
- For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making
a presentation at any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most general.
I am definitely no lawyer, but I thought that there was specific exemption in the definition of "public domain" in 22 CFR 120.11(6):
"Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public in the United States"
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/22cfr120.11.htm
Cheers, Howard G6LVB
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 10:24 -0400, Bob McGwier wrote:
We need OFFICIAL cover in writing There is no way around this. The lack of this has crippled us.
For what it's worth, I completely agree. I see no way to make forward progress on the projects that matter to me without a firm resolution to "the ITAR problem" that will allow our various contributors to know for sure where they stand, and productively re-enable our interactions with non-US colleagues.
73 - Bdale, KB0G
participants (9)
-
Bdale Garbee -
Bill Ress -
Bob McGwier -
Daniel Schultz -
Dick Jansson-rr -
Frank Brickle -
Howard Long -
John B. Stephensen -
Lyle Johnson