On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 5:08 PM Brad Biddle <brad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 11:13 AM Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I am still be interested to learn if/how IAB did vet its invitation only workshop
rules with the IEF lawyer re. compliance with USA EAR rules.Toerless and all -- one of the IETF's lawyers here. Without inviting lots of nuanced discussion of a complex legal topic on large public mailing lists, let me note that materials presented at "open conferences" are broadly exempted from the EARs, and the definition of open conference is reasonably broad -- e.g., it can include "a limitation on actual attendance, as long as attendees either are the first who have applied or are selected on the basis of relevant scientific or technical competence, experience, or responsibility," among other things.The regulatory language is frustratingly opaque, but please see 15 CFR 734.2 [1]
Typo in my text: 15 CFR 734.7 is the relevant regulation. The footnoted link is correct.
and a relevant BIS FAQ [2]. Also let me assure you that export control compliance is a key focus area for the legal team and we would definitely flag any concerns for the IAB leadership and other stakeholders.--Brad
Cheers
Toerless
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 06:35:27PM +0200, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Hmm... can not remember i saw that being mentionined in invites. Do you rmember
> an example one ?
>
> How does that work with USA EAR ? Or where participants already excluded based on EAR ?
>
> Cheers
> Toerless
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 04:29:40PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > The few workshops I have attended (four or five) were all under Chatham House rules, to enable frank and open discussion among those present.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
Brad Biddle | brad@xxxxxxxxxx | +1.503.502.1259 (mobile) | http://biddle.law
