<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tidbits from the SIA Fall Conference</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/52/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/52</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ExportLawBlog &#187; Does Part 129 Cover Foreign Sales Reps?</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/52/comment-page-1#comment-1671</link>
		<dc:creator>ExportLawBlog &#187; Does Part 129 Cover Foreign Sales Reps?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/52#comment-1671</guid>
		<description>[...] Several years ago DDTC tried to short-circuit the debate by saying informally at industry conferences that a foreign person outside the United States performing brokering services with respect to U.S.-origin defense articles or defense services was, in DDTC&#8217;s view, &#8220;otherwise subject to&#8221; U.S. jurisdiction. They further announced that they would issue guidelines to make this clear but emphasized that this was not a change in interpretation (although arguably it was). They have continued to take this position publicly including, most recently, at the Fall 2006 conference of the Society for International Affairs and at the March 21, 2007 meeting of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (&#8221;DTAG&#8221;) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Several years ago DDTC tried to short-circuit the debate by saying informally at industry conferences that a foreign person outside the United States performing brokering services with respect to U.S.-origin defense articles or defense services was, in DDTC&#8217;s view, &#8220;otherwise subject to&#8221; U.S. jurisdiction. They further announced that they would issue guidelines to make this clear but emphasized that this was not a change in interpretation (although arguably it was). They have continued to take this position publicly including, most recently, at the Fall 2006 conference of the Society for International Affairs and at the March 21, 2007 meeting of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (&#8221;DTAG&#8221;) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

