Re: [gentoo-nfp] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation - 1.0 reply

[Daniel Campbell]

On 01/11/2017 06:45 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> TL;DR: Unless a specific "evil" person/organization/entity is trying to
> interact with Gentoo AND it's on restricted grounds AND we know they are
> bad, we have no large concerns.
>
> The devil is in the details.
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:39:32PM -0600, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> 3. US Embargo.
>>
>>   We are already a US organization, that, in my non-lawyer mind, means
>> we already have to deal with this.  Just because a developer is a member
>> of the project and not directly under the foundation does not mean the
>> foundation can ignore US embargo policy.
>>
>> That said, I don't really think this has been a problem in the past and
>> will likely not be a problem in the future.
> As the person that has looked into this issue the most, with actual
> legal counsel backing my answer, I will provide my definitive answer.
>
> The research was triggered by a potential developer from a previously
> sanctioned country. It was made moot by said person moving to the US.
> They did not join us a developer however, citing lack of time after
> moving.
>
> The following definition based on the state of most broad sanctions
> being replaced by very targeted sanctions in most cases, against
> whatever the US government doesn't want to happen (arms dealers, russian
> oil, WMDs etc.)
>
> The Foundation, as a US entity,
> 1. CANNOT _knowingly_
> 1.1 do business with or
> 1.2. have as a member
> 2. ANY entity
> 2.1. corporation,
> 2.2. organization
> 2.3. individual
> 3. Is covered by ANY of the following:
> 3.1. US BIS Denied Persons list [1]
> 3.2. US Federal Regulations (15)(B)(VII)(C)(744) [2]
> 3.3. US Department of State Trade Controls [3][4]
> 3.4. US Department of Treasury Specially Designated Nationals [5]
> 3.5. US Consolidated Screening List [6]
> 4. In certain cases, specific exemptions to the above CAN be applied
>    for.
>
> For some background, see [10]
>
> [1] https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/the-denied-persons-list
> [2] http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=9ae4a21068f2bd41d4a5aee843b63ef1&ty=HTML&h=L&n=15y2.1.3.4.28&r=PART#15:2.1.3.4.28.0.1.23.42
> [3] http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/debar.html
> [4] http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/debar_admin.html
> [5] https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx
> [6] http://2016.export.gov/ecr/eg_main_023148.asp
> [10] https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/faqs#faq_104
>
>

So, if I'm reading that correctly, it means that we must selectively
offer foundation membership (based on what looks to be nation-of-origin
for the most part) rather than defaulting to "yes". In other words, our
current practice. Do I have that right?

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6