[Ground-station] Call for Input - meeting with legal team about ITAR/EAR results

[Robert McGwier]

What it definitely does is provide a refutation to anyone capable of using
logic (anyone not in AMSAT leadership for example) that what was being said
and believed is true from both objective party and regulatory authority.

AMSAT did not want to believe they were forced to do everything open
source. In fact, they are not, but then they have the burden of trying to
follow the regulations with no regular legal assistance to keep them out of
trouble.  Who hear thinks they can and survive?  They are afraid of their
own shadows and have been a long time since Harold Price got fined a huge
fine for violating ITAR with Martin Sweeting. Enough so that they killed
participation with AMSAT-DL and scared everyone in AMSAT engineering
ranks.  Frank, Jan and I were beyond pissed with Barry for doing a mea
culpa without our input in any form.

Librespace, ORI, and others like them are going to do things in a way that
allows forward motion and accomplishment even in the United States.

Good work Michelle and ORI.

Bob




On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 11:04 AM Michelle Thompson via Ground-Station
<ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:

> Yes, that's fair to say.
>
> The question about what counts as public has been clarified.
>
> This is a big step forward, greatly reduces risk, and provides a framework
> and reference for wider use.
>
> The challenges specific to amateur radio and amateur satellite were known
> about and incorporated into the work from the beginning. For example,
> deliberately including encryption instead of taking the easier road and
> leaving it out. Leaving it out would have greatly weakened the results and
> incompletely covered privileges under part 97.
>
> There are legitimate critiques of and limitations on this work. I'm
> motivated to find them and address them in future work and filings.
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 3:32 PM Frank Brickle <brickle at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that was the message we got during the original AMSAT screw-up that
>> led to Lyle and Chuck heading for the hills. But part of the message then
>> was that what counted as "public" was subject to interpretation. I would
>> like to believe this has been clarified.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 3:20 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I wrote this a long time ago and I believe it's still on the ORI
>>> site. Essentially the rule is absolutely everything has to be done in the
>>> public.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 15:14 Frank Brickle via Ground-Station
>>> <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Q: Is there one simple rule of thumb that can be relied on to keep you
>>>> out of trouble with ITAR/EAR?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 11:02 AM Michelle Thompson via Ground-Station
>>>> <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Call for Input: Meeting tomorrow (Thursday, 9 September 2021) with
>>>>> Thomsen and Burke about the ITAR/EAR regulatory results. They want me to
>>>>> bring misconceptions and frequently asked questions in order to better
>>>>> craft a FAQ and implementation guidelines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quotes would help, but paraphrasing any objections you have heard
>>>>> would be just as useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Michelle W5NYV
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
Dr. Robert W McGwier, Ph.D.
Adjunct Faculty, Virginia Tech
ARDC Member of Board
N4HY: ARRL, TAPR, AMSAT, EARC
Sky: AAVSO, SkyHub, Auburn AS, Skyscrapers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20210909/dc529f91/attachment.html>