(In Queue): International Postal Union

[Grays Harbor]

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.

Our definition of hostilities is the tossing and/or use of items meant to harm an opponent, be it knives, axes, swords, bullets, missiles (both arrows and powered), nukes, rocks, etc. "War" or "Conflict" is what we are going for as to the definition of hostilities.

[Grays Harbor]

Are there any further recommendations? Alterations?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Lack of discussion doesn't imply acceptance of the proposal. Even if I could understand the first article, which is riddled with incomplete and run-on sentences that make it difficult to discern what exactly this proposal wishes to do, the idea of a single postal union expanding across all inhabited countries is ridiculous. So, I will give the benefit of the doubt.

From what I can deduce, this proposal does the following:

• Mandates the existence of national postal services (NPS),
• Mandates that those NPS accept and deliver foreign mail,
• Requires that foreign mail be treated 'without discrimination' - whatever that means,
• Establishes a right of passage for foreign NPS to operate inside other nations, without regulation.

And then it goes on into non-binding encouragement clauses. For the record, the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes is against this proposal. Our own postal treaties have done quite well and are better written and more detailed than this misguided, generalized attempt.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Grays Harbor]

Lack of discussion doesn't imply acceptance of the proposal. Even if I could understand the first article, which is riddled with incomplete and run-on sentences that make it difficult to discern what exactly this proposal wishes to do, the idea of a single postal union expanding across all inhabited countries is ridiculous. So, I will give the benefit of the doubt.

From what I can deduce, this proposal does the following:

• Mandates the existence of national postal services (NPS),
• Mandates that those NPS accept and deliver foreign mail,
• Requires that foreign mail be treated 'without discrimination' - whatever that means,
• Establishes a right of passage for foreign NPS to operate inside other nations, without regulation.

And then it goes on into non-binding encouragement clauses. For the record, the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes is against this proposal. Our own postal treaties have done quite well and are better written and more detailed than this misguided, generalized attempt.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

incorrect assumption, no such thing is even mentioned anywhere in this treaty

Yes, it does say that. That is not a bad thing.

That means that mail that originates elsewhere cannot be relegated to a lower class than what is the equivelent for their own. If a 1st class overnight letter comes in, they must treat it as such and not relegate it to the spam dogsled delivery service

Nowhere does this treaty say anything about how letters and packages arriving from a foreign country are unregulated. Quite the opposite in fact. There is also no provision that foreign postal services are required to operate in another country. You are confusing mail and mail services.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I must admit it is a bit hurried, honoured ambassador to Grays Harbor so I could not support the current version: also, the current version are running into problems on how member states should treat items with stamps from non-member states and those with incorrect postage.

I assume it must be a test run, but it does not hurt to voluntarily withdraw the proposal for further elaboration.

[Grays Harbor]

I must admit it is a bit hurried, honoured ambassador to Grays Harbor so I could not support the current version: also, the current version are running into problems on how member states should treat items with stamps from non-member states and those with incorrect postage.

I assume it must be a test run, but it does not hurt to voluntarily withdraw the proposal for further elaboration.

hmm. ok, thought we had the bugs worked out. Guess not.

For non-member states, do you mean like non-WA members? My assumption has always been that mail is mail, but if you have an idea for a way to work that in, I'm all eyes.

Incorrect postage by which standard? The originating nation, or receiving nation? Different countries have different postage rates. It costs more to mail a 1st class letter in Europe, for example, than it does in the US, and the US is more expensive than China. I would guesstimate that if a package or letter has insufficient postage for its class and weight, then that is where the venerable postage due stamp comes into play.

Honestly, the current version is nearly identical to the RW UPU treaty, just not as long. And it seems to have worked quite well since its inception in 1874.

[Glen-Rhodes]

incorrect assumption, no such thing is even mentioned anywhere in this treaty

Guaranteeing 1.) The free circulation of postal items over a single postal territory composed of interconnected networks,

Yes, it does say that. That is not a bad thing.

I disagree.

That means that mail that originates elsewhere cannot be relegated to a lower class than what is the equivelent for their own. If a 1st class overnight letter comes in, they must treat it as such and not relegate it to the spam dogsled delivery service

And it can also mean that such mail cannot be charged at a higher rate, even if the cost of delivering such mail increases.

Nowhere does this treaty say anything about how letters and packages arriving from a foreign country are unregulated. Quite the opposite in fact. There is also no provision that foreign postal services are required to operate in another country. You are confusing mail and mail services.

Freedom of Transit being an obligation for intermediate postal administrations to transport postal items passed on to them in transit by another WAPU postal administration, providing similar treatment to that given to domestic items.

This sentence, which doesn't even qualify as a grammatically correct sentence in the first place, allows 'intermediate postal administrations' to 'transport postal items'. It does not mention that they must be transported to the addressee's nation's postal service. These 'intermediate postal administrations' have an unregulated right of passage into any nation to 'transport postal items'.

Why you would submit this a day after writing its first draft is absolutely beyond me. It shows a presumptuous arrogance and an unwillingness to participate in effective debate.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

Honestly, the current version is nearly identical to the RW UPU treaty, just not as long. And it seems to have worked quite well since its inception in 1874.

(OOC: Actually, no it is not. You've sliced and diced the Treaty of Berne into incomprehensible blobs of text. You've also completely overlooked the important parts of the Treaty of Berne, which aren't the guarantees that mail will be delivered, but the settings of uniform fees for mail delivery.)

[Grays Harbor]

incorrect assumption, no such thing is even mentioned anywhere in this treaty

Guaranteeing 1.) The free circulation of postal items over a single postal territory composed of interconnected networks,

Yes, it does say that. That is not a bad thing.

I disagree.

That means that mail that originates elsewhere cannot be relegated to a lower class than what is the equivelent for their own. If a 1st class overnight letter comes in, they must treat it as such and not relegate it to the spam dogsled delivery service

And it can also mean that such mail cannot be charged at a higher rate, even if the cost of delivering such mail increases.

Nowhere does this treaty say anything about how letters and packages arriving from a foreign country are unregulated. Quite the opposite in fact. There is also no provision that foreign postal services are required to operate in another country. You are confusing mail and mail services.

Freedom of Transit being an obligation for intermediate postal administrations to transport postal items passed on to them in transit by another WAPU postal administration, providing similar treatment to that given to domestic items.

This sentence, which doesn't even qualify as a grammatically correct sentence in the first place, allows 'intermediate postal administrations' to 'transport postal items'. It does not mention that they must be transported to the addressee's nation's postal service. These 'intermediate postal administrations' have an unregulated right of passage into any nation to 'transport postal items'.

Why you would submit this a day after writing its first draft is absolutely beyond me. It shows a presumptuous arrogance and an unwillingness to participate in effective debate.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

Honestly, the current version is nearly identical to the RW UPU treaty, just not as long. And it seems to have worked quite well since its inception in 1874.

(OOC: Actually, no it is not. You've sliced and diced the Treaty of Berne into incomprehensible blobs of text. You've also completely overlooked the important parts of the Treaty of Berne, which aren't the guarantees that mail will be delivered, but the settings of uniform fees for mail delivery.)

Postal Territory refers to postal routes, not a single international postal service. I thought that was pretty obvious.

And you are correct, this does not allow for increased costs being passed on. The originator charges the postal rates, the end delivers it. Thats it.

OOC-I am not going to get drawn into a flamebaity argument about how "arrogant" or "Presumptuous" I may or may not be. Please confine your arguments to the subject, not the proposer.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Postal Territory refers to postal routes, not a single international postal service. I thought that was pretty obvious.

You are mandating that nations have free postal services by guaranteeing access to the 'free circulation of postal items over a single postal territory composed of interconnected networks'. If this is not what you intended, then rewrite your proposal, Ambassador.

And you are correct, this does not allow for increased costs being passed on. The originator charges the postal rates, the end delivers it. Thats it.

So not only are you mandating a free postal service, but you are leaving that mandate to be funded by nations that may very well not want to participate in this absurd and unclear 'postal union' concoction. If there is one thing I dislike more than silly mandates, it is silly unfunded mandates.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

OOC-I am not going to get drawn into a flamebaity argument about how "arrogant" or "Presumptuous" I may or may not be. Please confine your arguments to the subject, not the proposer.

(OOC: I'll 'confine my arguments' to whatever and whomever I please. If you can't stand the IC heat, learn what IC is and come back tomorrow.)

[Grays Harbor]

Postal Territory refers to postal routes, not a single international postal service. I thought that was pretty obvious.

You are mandating that nations have free postal services by guaranteeing access to the 'free circulation of postal items over a single postal territory composed of interconnected networks'. If this is not what you intended, then rewrite your proposal, Ambassador.

And you are correct, this does not allow for increased costs being passed on. The originator charges the postal rates, the end delivers it. Thats it.

So not only are you mandating a free postal service, but you are leaving that mandate to be funded by nations that may very well not want to participate in this absurd and unclear 'postal union' concoction. If there is one thing I dislike more than silly mandates, it is silly unfunded mandates.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

OOC-I am not going to get drawn into a flamebaity argument about how "arrogant" or "Presumptuous" I may or may not be. Please confine your arguments to the subject, not the proposer.

(OOC: I'll 'confine my arguments' to whatever and whomever I please. If you can't stand the IC heat, learn what IC is and come back tomorrow.)

free meaning unhindered, not the cost. You are reading something into it that ain't there.

[Glen-Rhodes]

free meaning unhindered, not the cost. You are reading something into it that ain't there.

Then write it that way. The intent of the law means nothing compared to the letter of the law. Right now, you are making a very rookie mistake. You are thinking that you can explain away any concerns by interpreting the language into what you intended it to say. But when the Compliance Commission comes to check that Glen-Rhodes has complied with the resolution, it will be looking to see if Glen-Rhodes law guarantees the 'free circulation of postal items over a single postal territory composed of interconnected networks', in every sense of the word 'free'.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Linux and the X]

Quite the opposite, Doctor. The Compliance Commission verifies only that that every nation can come up with some explaination of how they are following the letter of the law, even if not in the way intended by the author. How else would creative interpretations help us?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Quite the opposite, Doctor. The Compliance Commission verifies only that that every nation can come up with some explaination of how they are following the letter of the law, even if not in the way intended by the author. How else would creative interpretations help us?

First of all, there should be no uncertainty about what the proposal intends to do. The letter of the law should be the intent, and anything less is unacceptable and amateur.

Second of all, there are only two possible versions of free: unhindered or actually free of costs. Considering that this proposal allows nations to hinder the delivery of illegal mail or mail from hostile nations, there's a conflict between the guarantee of 'free' postal services and postal regulations. So, that leaves the second, which is utterly ridiculous. Either choice is horrible: have a completely deregulated postal service or have a zero-cost postal service.

If the only solution is to bastardize the definition of 'free', which not only compromises several other World Assembly resolutions, but also the foundations of democratic constitutions -- remember, if we get around the 'free' requirement by defining free in some obscure way, we have to define it in that obscure way throughout all national laws -- then I think it's safe to say that this proposal is a blunder. The author should remove it from the approval queue and work on a more clear, directed proposal.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[IduC]

I also have to ask - you pay postage when you drop a letter or package off at your local posting station - IE the locale gets the money and does the first half of the job - but then the package/ letter goes off to nation x- and their postal organization delivers it - ie does the second half of job - are they going to get half the postage fee?

[Flibbleites]

Why is there a [color] tag in the submitted proposal?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why is there a [color] tag in the submitted proposal?

(OOC: Because there's a [color] tag in the original post. )

[Grays Harbor]

Why is there a [color] tag in the submitted proposal?

Because I missed one when I thought I had edited them all out and did not notice until I had already hit the "submit" key.

[Krioval]

While the Imperial Chiefdom remains uncommitted on this issue, we would like to suggest the following format change, should the current version fail to reach quorum.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY POSTAL UNION
Category: Free Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Noting the diversity of national postal systems,

Working to eliminate inefficiencies in international postal delivery,

Creates the World Assembly Postal Union (WAPU), to coordinate postal deliveries between World Assembly member states,

Guarantees the following:

1.) Freedom of transit for postal items over a single postal territory composed of interconnected networks, where "freedom of transit" is defined as: the obligation for intermediate postal administrations to transport postal items passed on to them in transit by another WAPU postal administration, providing similar treatment for both domestic and international items.
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, except where mandated by international law.
3.) The right of each nation 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.

Encourages the development of fair common standards and the use of technology in postal delivery, including proper handling of potentially toxic or otherwise hazardous materials.

Calls for monitoring and updating effective technical cooperation to meet the needs of postal customers.

Feel free to revert any of the changes I have made. Basically, what was changed was:

• Added two preambulatory clauses ("Noting...", and "Working...")
• Changed the original first clause "The mission..." to a stronger "Creates..." and reduced its length
• Changed clauses with "ing" endings to more direct verb forms ("s" forms)
• Contracted part "1.)" as parts looked redundant. Defined "freedom of transit" and put that at the beginning of the clause
• Added "...except where mandated by international law" to cover exception for diplomatic papers and communications, as covered (potentially) in Diplomat Protection Act
• Deleted "Ensuring..." clause and replaced part dealing with hazardous or illegal materials as part "3.)" beneath the "Guarantees..." clause
• Modified "Encourages..." clause slightly - now also encourages nations to develop standards for handling hazardous materials (if they'd like)
• Converted "Promoting..." clause to "Calls for..." clause; modifies ending somewhat
• Deleted "Resolved..." clause to shorten overall length
• Deleted color tags

Please let me know if any of our suggestions are sufficient for Your Excellency's needs, and whether we might be of assistance in the future.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Grays Harbor]

Once again, we thank Lord Tyvok for his useful and constructive critique, and will most assuredly take his recommendations under serious consideration.

Lord Brikkel

[Satautey]

The Republic of Satautey strongly agrees with the proposal and will support it.

[Philimbesi]

We object on the grounds that WA Compliance Gnomes are nuts enough and now you are going to make them postal workers.

[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.

Our definition of hostilities is the tossing and/or use of items meant to harm an opponent, be it knives, axes, swords, bullets, missiles (both arrows and powered), nukes, rocks, etc. "War" or "Conflict" is what we are going for as to the definition of hostilities.

You still need an exception clause for embargoes. Also, refusal to recognize another nation would merit a discontinuation of the mail to that nation. No "open" hostilities are needed to blockade a country. Not a shot need be fired.

[Grays Harbor]

We object on the grounds that WA Compliance Gnomes are nuts enough and now you are going to make them postal workers.

(ok, we hadn't thought of that aspect)

[Grays Harbor]

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.

Our definition of hostilities is the tossing and/or use of items meant to harm an opponent, be it knives, axes, swords, bullets, missiles (both arrows and powered), nukes, rocks, etc. "War" or "Conflict" is what we are going for as to the definition of hostilities.

You still need an exception clause for embargoes. Also, refusal to recognize another nation would merit a discontinuation of the mail to that nation. No "open" hostilities are needed to blockade a country. Not a shot need be fired.

That is something we will take under consideration. Thank you.

[Gobbannium]

Lord Brikkel may not have been in this chamber long enough to realise that advice from Dr Castro concerning meanings should be roundly ignored, since Dr Castro is invariably wrong on the subject. That said, the first operant clause is quite confusing, using terminology that is not in everyday usage, so Dr Castro's confusion is justified. Might we suggest a little elucidation is in order? Taking the wording from Lord Tyvok's rephrasing:

1.) Freedom of transit for postal items over a single postal territory composed of interconnected networks, where "freedom of transit" is defined as: the obligation for intermediate postal administrations to transport postal items passed on to them in transit by another WAPU postal administration, providing similar treatment for both domestic and international items.

We aren't clear what a "postal territory" is, or how large an area it might be considered to cover. Would the G1 postcode of Dinas Gobbannium be considered a postal territory, or the whole city, or the principality, or all the principalities, or the entire Zhaucauozian Friendship? We are looking for guidance more than hard definition, since the terminology has no referents for us personally.

It also took us a while to understand that freedom of transit does not imply free transit, and that the proposal offers no mechanism to resolve who bears the costs of transit. There needs to be some such, otherwise Freedom of Transit becomes either hopelessly entangled in international negotiations or a minor weapon of economic warfare depending on the understandings of the nations involved.

A minor quibble would be whether "equivalent" is a more appropriate word than "similar".

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, except where mandated by international law.

Admirably clear and unequivocal.

3.) The right of each nation 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.

This would appear to be rather watered down from the original version, and we do worry that it renders the remainder of the proposal worthless. As it stands, we could decide that items from Bigtopia may not be transmitted through the Gobbannaen Postal Service (and to be fair they do tend to be rather oversized packages, so we could understand such an impulse). At this point the freedom of transit above becomes mere pretty words that can be ignored at a stroke.