[Diem] Re: [EXT] Re: Some high-level thoughts on scoping

[Samit D_CUNHA <[e-mail]>]

Hey Dennis,

You’re of course exactly right.

With regards to the parties that use the emblem, including medical facilities, it’s worth emphasizing that it’s also militaries *themselves* that use the emblem; they use the emblem for their medical military services as well as certain religious personnel. Anyways, happy to get into the nuances in Vancouver.

So we’re talking around almost 200 states, all party to the Geneva Conventions, some of which are fighting in over 120 armed conflicts worldwide (https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/05/02/defining-armed-conflict-some-clarity-in-the-fog-of-war/#:~:text=Today%2C%20there%20are%20over%20120,the%20turn%20of%20the%20millennium.)

Hi Serge,

As you probably know given Switzerland is the depositor of the GCs and APs, referring to the RCRCRC as the “ICRC emblems” isn’t correct. We’re the international committee, yes– but the red cross, crescent, and crystal can be used by any State on the planet party to armed conflict to signal protection under IHL of certain persons and objects (in addition  to the Federation but let’s not get into that nuance now…)

Cheers,

Samit

From: Serge Droz <[e-mail]>
Sent: lundi, 1 juillet 2024 18:48
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [EXT] [Diem] Re: Some high-level thoughts on scoping

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the ICRC. If you can't recognize the sender, avoid clicking links or opening attachments. In case of query, please contact the ServiceDesk.


Hi Dennis



I think what Bill tries to say is, that there are many more emblems than the ICRC one.

Ideally you have a standard that allows you produce an Emblem for the use case at hand, so you can use the same tech to read an ICRC emblem as you can use to read e.g. an emblem designating a nuclera facility or a piece of art.

But yes, there are many parties that should be able to read an ICRC emblem, or any other one. But we want to avoid a situation where a standard is defined that covers only the requirements of one stakeholder.

 So I don´t think there is a contradiction.

Best

Serge


On 01/07/2024 18:40, Dennis Jackson wrote:

Hi Bill,

On 30/06/2024 03:22, Bill Woodcock wrote:
I would suggest that the IETF is not in the business of crafting standards to describe individual products built for individual organizations, but instead is in the business of crafting open standards that solve issues of interoperability between multiple stakeholders. The former don’t require standardization, while the latter can only exist with standardization.

I think this is a fairly serious misunderstanding of the role the emblems play.

The emblems are applied by the appropriate protected parties (inc medical facilities, the ICRC and national societies) on a broad range of software / services / devices. The emblems are consumed by parties to armed conflict on their own software / services / devices.

Although the ICRC has a privileged role to play in stewarding the emblem, the emblem is used by a wide variety of stakeholders in all manners of conflicts and critically is used to convey information between different and possibly hostile stakeholders using very different implementations. It is emphatically something that needs standardization.

Best,
Dennis



_______________________________________________

Diem mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
===============================================================================
The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and
other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org

This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient
(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please
delete this e-mail and notify the sender. 
===============================================================================