(In Queue): International Postal Union

[Grays Harbor]

The current version, updated by Lord Tyvok of Krioval and edited by Charlotte Ryberg, version XLVII which we have under consideration for submission.

INTERNATIONAL POSTAL UNION
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Grays Harbor

NOTING the diversity of national postal systems;

WORKING to eliminate inefficiencies in international postal delivery;

The World Assembly,

1. CREATES the International Postal Union (IPU), as a union of postal administrations of all member states that will aim to work together to coordinate postal deliveries between all member states;

2a.1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution, the Freedom of transit, as the obligation for all postal administrations within the IPU to:
a) Relay and deliver postal items to or towards its destination in the most direct, safest and fastest route as possible;
b) Not discriminate between domestic and international postal items originating from postal administrations within the IPU;

2a.2. EMPHASISES that the definition of the freedom of transit shall not imply that a member state is obliged to permit all postal administrations within the IPU to traverse its territory, in order to relay or deliver the postal items;

2b. FURTHER DEFINES, also for the purpose of this Resolution:
• Hostilities, to include war, territorial and/or trade disputes, or refusal to recognize a nation's current government;
• Hazardous materials, as any nefarious inclusion to a mail package that could cause illness, injury, or death in a postal worker during routine transit, including but not limited to, chemical and biological agents, or explosives;

3a. INTRODUCES the International Reply Coupon which can be exchanged for the postage rate of one basic unregistered letter to be sent to a member state within the IPU;

3b. SPECIFIES that postal administrations in member states are not obliged to issue International Reply Coupons, but are required to honour International Reply Coupons in exchange for the postage of one basic unregistered letter at the international rate;

4. GUARANTEES the freedom of transit for all postal items throughout all member states, except where specifically limited elsewhere in this legislation;

5. SPECIFIES that:
a) Member states currently involved in hostilities shall be under no obligation to carry mail addressed to or sent from nations engaged in hostilities with them, except where mandated by international law;
b) Member states may determine procedures for handling hazardous materials in postal administrations under that nation's jurisdiction, and to determine which items may or may not be transmitted through that nation's postal system; including but not limited to hazardous or illegal materials;

6. PRESERVES the right of each postal administration in all member states to collect a reasonable fee for its handling of postal materials;

7. ENCOURAGES the development of fair common standards and the use of technology in postal delivery, including fee schedules and the proper handling of hazardous materials;

8. CALLS FOR monitoring and updating effective technical cooperation to meet the needs of postal customers.

(Co-authored by Krioval; Editing by Charlotte Ryberg)

Any suggestions or comments are welcome. Please keep them civil. And before we begin, I really don't want to have to argue "But we haz teh internetz!1!LULZ" as there currently is no means available to transmit items such as packages across the 'net, so a working postal system, whether government operated or private, is still essential to communications.

This is based upon the RW Universal Postal Union, which has been successfully ensuring the trasmittal of mail and posts since 1874.

Shall we begin?

[Arnsburg]

Yes.

[Burninati0n]

I don't see any major problems with it. However, I am unsure how it will affect nations with different types of postal systems. In other words, I'm not sure how this would affect private postal systems verse government controlled ones.

[Grays Harbor]

I don't see any major problems with it. However, I am unsure how it will affect nations with different types of postal systems. In other words, I'm not sure how this would affect private postal systems verse government controlled ones.

I would think that the ownership of postal systems (private vs government) would be a minor issue, and that the cooperation of all systems whether public or private would be the important consideration. I am sure that private systems would see the benefit of this as something to their advantage as it would help ensure the timely, efficient and cost effective international delivery of mail. Thats the theory, anyhow.

If you can think of a way to more clearly word the proposal so as to indicate that, I am open for improvements.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

"Postal Services operating in member states" may be a better term.

[Bears Armed]

Would there be an exemption for the postal services within nations that are currently at war with those to which the items in question are addressed?
Would nations have a right to ban the transit of 'hazardous' materials unless these are packed in a way that meets the nation's standards of safety?
Would nations have a right to ban the transit of goods of types whose possession by people within those same nations would be illegal?

[Tanaara]

The major quibble I can see is this... Quote "Encouraging the adoption of fair common standards and the use of technology;..."

"What if a nation has very minimal technology? Must they suddenly advance technology wise - will they nill they - to accomodate this? What if they integrate some extreme technology, such as psionics or the arcane -will other nations be forced to change to 'keep up with the jones's' ?" The UnDelegate asked

"and I think that you very much forget that the members of the World Assembly come from more than one world, one planet. Must each nation now develope the means to transit postal items to the far flung corners of the galaxy and beyond? That does not do their economy much good now does it?"

[Bears Armed]

The major quibble I can see is this... Quote "Encouraging the adoption of fair common standards and the use of technology;..."

"What if a nation has very minimal technology? Must they suddenly advance technology wise - will they nill they - to accomodate this? What if they integrate some extreme technology, such as psionics or the arcane -will other nations be forced to change to 'keep up with the jones's' ?" The UnDelegate asked

"and I think that you very much forget that the members of the World Assembly come from more than one world, one planet. Must each nation now develope the means to transit postal items to the far flung corners of the galaxy and beyond? That does not do their economy much good now does it?"

But as this would only apply to WA member nations you all already do have a way to manage this: Just send the stuff through the 'WA Portal' network to the destination nation's capital city, and let them take it from there...

[Grays Harbor]

Would there be an exemption for the postal services within nations that are currently at war with those to which the items in question are addressed?

reasonable. I will include a provision for that in the next draft.

Would nations have a right to ban the transit of 'hazardous' materials unless these are packed in a way that meets the nation's standards of safety?

Again, reasonable. I cannot see where the banning of hazardous materials through the postal system would a stopping point for this. I'll work up an addition for this as well.

Would nations have a right to ban the transit of goods of types whose possession by people within those same nations would be illegal?

Yes, reasonable.


Should any ambassador have suggestions or ideas on how to include these concerns, please do so.

[Snrubenahs]

I have another concern. The postal system is really a business, whether it be privately or publicly owned, so what if one postal system edges out the WA system with better prices? Will we continue funding a defunct business somehow? What I am saying is, who is to pay for this massive infrastructure?

[Grays Harbor]

The major quibble I can see is this... Quote "Encouraging the adoption of fair common standards and the use of technology;..."

"What if a nation has very minimal technology? Must they suddenly advance technology wise - will they nill they - to accomodate this? What if they integrate some extreme technology, such as psionics or the arcane -will other nations be forced to change to 'keep up with the jones's' ?" The UnDelegate asked

"and I think that you very much forget that the members of the World Assembly come from more than one world, one planet. Must each nation now develope the means to transit postal items to the far flung corners of the galaxy and beyond? That does not do their economy much good now does it?"

I do not believe that there would be unneccessary technology sharing required. What the postal services are now using should suffice, as well as standard delivery means. This is more designed to work towards a common goal, which is the timely and efficient transit of mail between nations, and not to encourage a "technology war" of everybody wanting to keep up with each other. Should nations wish to exchange technology, that is up to them. That we believe that international cooperation is a good thing is a given for us, but that is a matter entirely seperate from the movement of the mail.

[Grays Harbor]

I have another concern. The postal system is really a business, whether it be privately or publicly owned, so what if one postal system edges out the WA system with better prices? Will we continue funding a defunct business somehow? What I am saying is, who is to pay for this massive infrastructure?

You misconstrue this. This is not a WA postal system. This is an international multi-lateral treaty between the postal systems of the WA nations to ensure the timely and efficient movement of mail between the nations. This is not setting up a new postal system for everybody, just an agreement between each system and nation. It is designed so that the nations do not have to sign individual mail treaties with everybody else, but to put them all under one roof, so to speak. Each nation may set their own postal fees and regulations. This just ensures that mail can and will be carried between them without hinderance. (It is like the RW Universal Postal Union in that regard)

(Prior to the UPU, a postal system could charge extra fees to carry mail from another country. For example, prior to the UPU, if I sent a letter from New York to London, and it went via Portugal, Spain and France.. each of those could charge their own fee's for transit of the letter, payable by the addressee.)

[Snrubenahs]

I have another concern. The postal system is really a business, whether it be privately or publicly owned, so what if one postal system edges out the WA system with better prices? Will we continue funding a defunct business somehow? What I am saying is, who is to pay for this massive infrastructure?

You misconstrue this. This is not a WA postal system. This is an international multi-lateral treaty between the postal systems of the WA nations to ensure the timely and efficient movement of mail between the nations. This is not setting up a new postal system for everybody, just an agreement between each system and nation. It is designed so that the nations do not have to sign individual mail treaties with everybody else, but to put them all under one roof, so to speak. Each nation may set their own postal fees and regulations. This just ensures that mail can and will be carried between them without hinderance. (It is like the RW Universal Postal Union in that regard)

(Prior to the UPU, a postal system could charge extra fees to carry mail from another country. For example, prior to the UPU, if I sent a letter from New York to London, and it went via Portugal, Spain and France.. each of those could charge their own fee's for transit of the letter, payable by the addressee.)

Oh, I see.

[Grays Harbor]

Draft has been updated. Items in red are those which have been added or changed.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

2.) That Nations currently involved in hostilities are not required or obligated to carry the mail of those engaged in hostilities with them, either directly, or by transiting items from a third party addressed to the enemy.

For clarification, this should become:

2. Member states currently involved in hostilities shall be under no obligation to carry mail addressed to or sent from nations engaged in hostilities with them.

[Grays Harbor]

Thanks. We like your wording better.

[The Palentine]

AHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! SWEET FLAMING A**CRACKERS!!! What sin have I committed, that something like this drivel not only gets proposed, but is seriously discussed???? Absolutely and totally unnessasary!!!!!

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Grays Harbor]

Lord Brikkel leaned over to his assistant, Murray, "Did you not deliver those tranquilizers as requested? Ambassador Sulla from Palentine seems a bit, umm, agitated, yet again." Then directly towards Sulla, and speaking in Harberian, "Os gwelwch yn dda, Llysgennad Sulla, enlighten ni eich gwrthwynebiad i'r cynnig hwn? Hwn yn gytundeb i sicrhau y darperir yn ddiogel ac yn amserol bost rhwng cenhedloedd sofran, dim byd mwy. Os bydd gennych wrthwynebiad penodol, byddem yn hapus i eu cynnwys yn y drafodaeth." Brikkel had decided that he wouldn't give Sulla the satisfaction of himself using standard Anglic, but would let the WA translators take care of it for him.

WA Translation Service:

"Please, Ambassador Sulla, enlighten us with your objections to this proposal? This is a treaty to ensure the safe and timely delivery of mail between sovereign nations, nothing more. Should you have specific objections, we would be happy to include them in the debate."

[Krioval]

The Imperial Chiefdom finds this legislation unnecessary, and feels that postal transactions are best left to individual nations. International standards sound good on paper, Excellency, but the difficulties of integrating multiple types of technologies just to begin to make this viable are likely to cause problems down the road.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Linux and the X]

Postal systems are not required to carry any materials, hazardous or illegal, which have been banned in their nation.

Is there any reason to specify "hazardous or illegal" materials which have been banned? Removing that clause would make the proposal more succinct, and the only practical difference is that it would remove the argument that nations are not required to carry materials that are illegal but not banned.

[Burninati0n]

I don't see any major problems with it. However, I am unsure how it will affect nations with different types of postal systems. In other words, I'm not sure how this would affect private postal systems verse government controlled ones.

I would think that the ownership of postal systems (private vs government) would be a minor issue, and that the cooperation of all systems whether public or private would be the important consideration. I am sure that private systems would see the benefit of this as something to their advantage as it would help ensure the timely, efficient and cost effective international delivery of mail. Thats the theory, anyhow.

If you can think of a way to more clearly word the proposal so as to indicate that, I am open for improvements.

OK, after reading it more carefully with the improvements, I'd say it's pretty good. I'd vote for it.

[Grays Harbor]

A valid point, Lord Tyvok; However, this does not seek to integrate everybody's tech, but merely to codify the movement of mail between nations. How each postal system moves it is entirely up to them. We know of at least one nation which uses dogsleds, and several who use airmail for all but the shortest truck hauls. How each nation moves it is largely immaterial, that it gets moved is the important part. Also, endorsing common standards does not mean that they need be identical standards in fact, but only in application.

[Grays Harbor]

Postal systems are not required to carry any materials, hazardous or illegal, which have been banned in their nation.

Is there any reason to specify "hazardous or illegal" materials which have been banned? Removing that clause would make the proposal more succinct, and the only practical difference is that it would remove the argument that nations are not required to carry materials that are illegal but not banned.

It was only included for clarity purposes. I believe I understand the basis for your objection, but I do not see how altering the text would neccessarily make the change desired. Then again, we may just be not getting the gist of your point.

[Serrland]

What is meant by "hostilities?" War, embargo, lack of recognition of sovereignity? Serrland is very much in agreement with this proposed resolution, but would like to see a clarification of the definition of "hostilities" in this context.

[Snrubenahs]

What is meant by "hostilities?" War, embargo, lack of recognition of sovereignity? Serrland is very much in agreement with this proposed resolution, but would like to see a clarification of the definition of "hostilities" in this context.

Good point. An Exception regarding embargoes should be included.