[Ground-station] ORI Decision Tree - for review

[Bruce Perens]

More comprehensible version:[image: ITAR and EAR decision tree.png]


On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 4:02 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> I think this is the decision tree you want:
>
> 0. Is the work for a party that is likely to make military use of the
> information?
> YES - This is a defense service, don't do in ORI.
> NO - go to 1.
> 1. Is the item on the list of items subject to ITAR or EAR: Example, a
> space satellite, ground equipment, certain forms of radio
> communication devices.
> YES - go to 2
> NO - OK for an ORI project, no precautions necessary.
> 2. Does the item have a non-military use?
> YES - go to 3
> NO, all potential uses are military: don't do this work in ORI.
> 3. Will you always publish all information as it is created?
> YES - OK for an ORI project, be careful to publish.
> NO - Don't do this work in ORI.
>
> Separate checklist:
> 1. Is the work for a party that is likely to make military use of the
> information?
> YES - This is a defense service, don't do in ORI.
> NO -
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 3:50 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am parsing the decision tree this way:
> >
> > Is the information about a spacecraft, satellite, or space vehicle
> > regardless of whether it is military, commercial, or amateur?
> > YES - the information may be subject to ITAR, go no farther
> > NO - Is the information dual-use?
> >     YES - Publish it and go ahead, even if it potentially has a
> > military application.
> >     NO - It may be subject to EAR, regardless of whether it has any
> > military application.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 3:45 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, the example of military or defense parts, articles, or services
> > > does not include any military use and does include commercial and
> > > scientific uses. This seems garbled or something. If these came from
> > > the attorneys, we need to work or clarification .
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 3:41 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dual-use is not defined, and it looks to me like the decision for
> > > > dual-use is reversed.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 3:31 PM Michelle Thompson via Ground-Station
> > > > <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's an ORI Decision Tree for review. Please post comments and
> questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is intended to be part of the regulatory folder in the
> documents repository.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Michelle W5NYV
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Bruce Perens K6BP
> > > > - Board Partner, OSS Capital LLC Venture Capital
> > > > - CEO, undisclosed startup
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bruce Perens K6BP
> > > - Board Partner, OSS Capital LLC Venture Capital
> > > - CEO, undisclosed startup
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Perens K6BP
> > - Board Partner, OSS Capital LLC Venture Capital
> > - CEO, undisclosed startup
>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Perens K6BP
> - Board Partner, OSS Capital LLC Venture Capital
> - CEO, undisclosed startup
>


-- 
Bruce Perens K6BP
- Board Partner, OSS Capital LLC Venture Capital
- CEO, undisclosed startup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20211011/f97e3707/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ITAR and EAR decision tree.png
Type: image/png
Size: 188365 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20211011/f97e3707/attachment-0001.png>