(In Queue): International Postal Union

[Glen-Rhodes]

"The initial brief has been updated and circulated to the General Assembly. Your concerns have been addressed, and clause 3 has been reworded to include elements of the earlier version of Clause 3, which was favoured by you. We trust this meets with your approval." Brikkel then returned to the cache of "sliders" he had acquired from the passing waitress.

The third mandate is certainly more acceptable, but I can't see any changes beyond that. Has the Ambassador considered my clarifications of 'freedom of transit' and the minor alteration of the hostilities definition?

[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]

[Krioval]

The third mandate is certainly more acceptable, but I can't see any changes beyond that. Has the Ambassador considered my clarifications of 'freedom of transit' and the minor alteration of the hostilities definition?

The Imperial Chiefdom does not speak for the author, but we feel that "trade embargo" could include "trade dispute". It might be best to just use "trade dispute", since an embargo certainly would count as a "dispute" under most common definitions of the term. That said, we do not feel that the definition of "freedom of transit" needs additional clarification, especially with the expansion of part "3.)" under the "Guarantees..." clause and the inclusion of part "4.)".

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Instead of trade embargoes, may I suggest trade sanctions?

In regards to the international reply coupon, I would recommend leaving this alone as it may count as a world currency (illegal). If not, however, it would go well as a separate resolution which I may wish to tackle.

I have indeed attempted a similar resolution before, but it didn't really go too well. But feel free to call it the "World Postal Union" if you wish. In fact, i would favour that for tidiness and pride.

[Ilharessa]

One small point; should this resolution deal with the subject of the privacy of mail in transit? Perhaps an additional short clause might be in order to forbid opening mail except for the purpose of dealing with hazardous materials. To pacify the paranoid totalitarian anti-terrorists, an additional get-out of "except as other international legislation permits" might be needed.

We believe that particular can of worms might be best left to the individual nations to decide. However, I have been wrong before, so I may well be again. We shall wait a second opinion on this. Perhaps a third as well.

"The 'can of worms' of which you speak is one we would be outright opposed to," the ambassadoress says. "Our people have a long history of tribal warfare and, as such, all items sent through the mail are opened inside the mail station for inspection. Before you complain, note that this action is necessary. Our history books record a vast number of instances of disapproval or disagreement being voiced by a creative variety of explosive, chemical weapons, microscopic biological weapons, and (on three known occasions) macroscopic biological weapons.

Also, it's ill-advised to mail anything living through our system. After the third instance with macroscopic biological weaponry, our postal service now kills anything living while it's still in the package. We are still unsure, to this very day, what became of that rabbit, how it was so industructable and so capable of violence, or why it had such malevolent red eyes."

The proteges can't help but giggle at that last statement.

[Grays Harbor]

Instead of trade embargoes, may I suggest trade sanctions?

In regards to the international reply coupon, I would recommend leaving this alone as it may count as a world currency (illegal). If not, however, it would go well as a separate resolution which I may wish to tackle.

I have indeed attempted a similar resolution before, but it didn't really go too well. But feel free to call it the "World Postal Union" if you wish. In fact, i would favour that for tidiness and pride.

I tried writing an explanation of what and IRC is, and it got so convoluted as to be unreadable. So, here is what Wiki says about realworld UPU IRC's

An international reply coupon (IRC) is a coupon that can be exchanged for one or more postage stamps representing the minimum postage for an unregistered priority airmail letter of up to twenty grams sent to another Universal Postal Union (UPU) member country. IRCs are accepted by all UPU member countries.

UPU member postal services are obliged to exchange an IRC for postage, but are not obliged to sell them.

The purpose of the IRC is to be able to send someone in another country a letter, along with the cost of postage for them to reply. If the addressee is within the same country, there is no need for an IRC because a self-addressed stamped envelope (SASE) will suffice; but if the addressee is in another country an IRC removes the necessity of acquiring foreign postage or sending appropriate currency.

The IRC was introduced in 1906 at a Universal Postal Union congress in Rome. At the time an IRC could be exchanged for a single-rate, ordinary postage stamp for surface delivery to a foreign country, as this was before the introduction of airmail services. As of 2006 an IRC is exchangeable in a UPU member country for the minimum postage of a priority or unregistered airmail letter to a foreign country.

As of February 2007, the current IRC is called "Beijing Model No. 2" and is available from post offices in more than 70 countries. They have an expiry date of 31 December 2009. IRCs are ordered from the UPU headquarters in Berne, Switzerland, by postal authorities. They are generally available at large post offices; in the U.S., they are requisitioned along with regular domestic stamps by any post office that has sufficient demand for them.

Prices for IRCs vary by country. In the United States in late 2008, the purchase price was $2.10USD. IRCs purchased in foreign countries could be used in United States toward the purchase of postage stamps and embossed stamped envelopes at the rate of $0.94 USD per coupon.

IRCs are often used by amateur radio operators sending QSL cards to each other; it has traditionally been considered good practice and common courtesy to include an IRC when writing to a foreign operator and expecting a reply by mail.

As stated above, previous editions of the IRC, the "Beijing" model and all subsequent versions bear an expiration date, consequently a new IRC will be issue every three years. The current IRC will become obsolete on 31 December 2009. Current stockpiles in the hands of users should be expended by then, or exchanged for the new "Nairobi" issue. The current issue (Beijing 2) IRC may be exchanged until 31 December 2009 (date printed on coupon). In principle, Beijing 2 coupons will no longer be sold after 31 August 2009. The new international reply coupon (Nairobi model) is due to go on sale starting 1 July 2009, and will be valid for exchange until 31 December 2013.

That does not sound even remotely similar to a "world currency", as an IRC has no intinsic value beyond use as an exchange coupon for 1 international rate postage stamp.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

No need to go into the design bit.

Maybe try this:

2a. INTRODUCES the International Reply Coupon for the exchange for the postage rate of one basic unregistered letter to be sent to a member state within the World Postal Union.

2b. MANDATES that postal services in member states shall be obliged to honour International Reply Coupon for the exchange of the said postage as stated in section 2a.

[Snrubenahs]

No need to go into the design bit.

Maybe try this:

2a. INTRODUCES the International Reply Coupon for the exchange for the postage rate of one basic unregistered letter to be sent to a member state within the World Postal Union.

2b. MANDATES that postal services in member states shall be obliged to honour International Reply Coupon for the exchange of the said postage as stated in section 2a.

I'm willing to accept this as long as it takes into account the cost of sending mail both TO and THROUGH each country.

[Grays Harbor]

No need to go into the design bit.

Maybe try this:

2a. INTRODUCES the International Reply Coupon for the exchange for the postage rate of one basic unregistered letter to be sent to a member state within the World Postal Union.

2b. MANDATES that postal services in member states shall be obliged to honour International Reply Coupon for the exchange of the said postage as stated in section 2a.

I'm willing to accept this as long as it takes into account the cost of sending mail both TO and THROUGH each country.

We are confused as to what you mean. The entire point of this is that it guarentees that international mail can be sent from one country to the next without additional fees being charged. An IRC purchased in Country A for "X" currency is exchangable in Country B for an international rate stamp without additional monies being charged. If nation A charges (using my own postal rates as an example 88p for an international letter, and an IRC in my country costs Є1,28; a patron purchases that IRC and sends the letter to Country B, which only charges 60 cents for an international letter, but the IRC is exchangable for 1 stamp, and in Country C they charge $2.00 for the same letter, but the same IRC from my country is exchangable for 1 stamp. I don't see how it could be much simpler. buy 1 IRC, send it, get 1 stamp for a return letter. There is no extra charge for TO or THROUGH each country, no more so than there would be for any other letter or package.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Another revision for suggestion:

2a. 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 World Postal Union.

2b. SPECIFIES that postal services in member states are under no obligation, yet encouraged, to issue International Reply Coupons, but are required to honour International Reply Coupon in exchange for the postage stated in section 2a.

I decided not to go in to specifying how many postage stamps in exchange for the WPU IRC for flexibility.

[Grays Harbor]

Another revision for suggestion:

2a. 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 World Postal Union.

2b. SPECIFIES that postal services in member states are under no obligation, yet encouraged, to issue International Reply Coupons, but are required to honour International Reply Coupon in exchange for the postage stated in section 2a.

I decided not to go in to specifying how many postage stamps in exchange for the WPU IRC for flexibility.

Noted and tentatively added to the OP draft.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

In my opinion, I am not too keen on the current naming of the union: not all committee names have to start with "World Assembly" and therefore I would recommend calling it simply the World Postal Union. (Some may remember my take on the acronym ICRC in GA#5 (repealed by GA#33 then replaced by GA#51) )

In fact, I show interest in designing the logo for the WPU based on one of my concepts for the WA rebranding.

Ms. Sarah Harper,

Chief Ambassador for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, to the World Assembly

[Krioval]

The Imperial Chiefdom feels that the introduction of the International Reply Coupon just adds unnecessary complexity to this proposal as it is currently written. Further, it is unclear as to how a national government would be reimbursed for the costs of postal transport when compelled to use the coupons. At the very least, more drafting on this particular issue would be needed to make it fit with the overall theme of the proposal, and the coupon should be mentioned after the mention of freedom of transit, which Krioval finds to be the most important part of the legislation. Finally, we would again indicate our desire that the phrase "trade embargo" be changed to "trade dispute".

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Snrubenahs]

No need to go into the design bit.

Maybe try this:

2a. INTRODUCES the International Reply Coupon for the exchange for the postage rate of one basic unregistered letter to be sent to a member state within the World Postal Union.

2b. MANDATES that postal services in member states shall be obliged to honour International Reply Coupon for the exchange of the said postage as stated in section 2a.

I'm willing to accept this as long as it takes into account the cost of sending mail both TO and THROUGH each country.

We are confused as to what you mean. The entire point of this is that it guarentees that international mail can be sent from one country to the next without additional fees being charged. An IRC purchased in Country A for "X" currency is exchangable in Country B for an international rate stamp without additional monies being charged. If nation A charges (using my own postal rates as an example 88p for an international letter, and an IRC in my country costs Є1,28; a patron purchases that IRC and sends the letter to Country B, which only charges 60 cents for an international letter, but the IRC is exchangable for 1 stamp, and in Country C they charge $2.00 for the same letter, but the same IRC from my country is exchangable for 1 stamp. I don't see how it could be much simpler. buy 1 IRC, send it, get 1 stamp for a return letter. There is no extra charge for TO or THROUGH each country, no more so than there would be for any other letter or package.

Only priority mail has a universal charge, and that only applies in certain countries for certain sized packages. All over the world, contries are divided into regions. The farther the package is sent, the more it costs to send it. This is especially true of bulk freight.

[Grays Harbor]

In my opinion, I am not too keen on the current naming of the union: not all committee names have to start with "World Assembly" and therefore I would recommend calling it simply the World Postal Union. (Some may remember my take on the acronym ICRC in GA#5 (repealed by GA#33 then replaced by GA#51) )

In fact, I show interest in designing the logo for the WPU based on one of my concepts for the WA rebranding.

Ms. Sarah Harper,

Chief Ambassador for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, to the World Assembly

We ourselves are not too keen on just WPU. Would International Postal Union (IPU) be acceptable?

Our reasoning for WAPU as opposed to WPU was because it would be binding only on WA members, and not all nations.

[Tsukasa-chan]

I agree with the good Ambassador Tyvok on the matter of reimbursement for costs incurred by public or private organisations involved in the transport of mail using an International Reply Coupon. If I am not mistaken, the current proposal seems to indicate that purchasing a single Coupon in one's home country is sufficient for the recipient of a letter to reply via standard mail, no matter how many nations are involved in the transport of this reply. This system does not indicate how the payment for the Coupon would be distributed to the nations involved or how multiple nations would be paid.

Besides this issue, the current proposal seems workable (barring further problems being found).

Rin 4
International Ambassador

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We ourselves are not too keen on just WPU. Would International Postal Union (IPU) be acceptable?

Our reasoning for WAPU as opposed to WPU was because it would be binding only on WA members, and not all nations.

That would be equally attractive: thumbs up for the IPU, honoured ambassador.

[Grays Harbor]

I agree with the good Ambassador Tyvok on the matter of reimbursement for costs incurred by public or private organisations involved in the transport of mail using an International Reply Coupon. If I am not mistaken, the current proposal seems to indicate that purchasing a single Coupon in one's home country is sufficient for the recipient of a letter to reply via standard mail, no matter how many nations are involved in the transport of this reply. This system does not indicate how the payment for the Coupon would be distributed to the nations involved or how multiple nations would be paid.

Besides this issue, the current proposal seems workable (barring further problems being found).

Rin 4
International Ambassador

there is no repayment to anybody. monies charged go to the originating nation. that is all. if the letter or IRC is purchased in country A, that one gets the money. then countries B, C, D, E, F etc carry the mail when required. when the stamps or IRC's are purchased in their country, they get the money. We thought that that had been made abundently clear through discussion and the wording of the treaty.

We do not care to open the accounting nightmare of dividing a 88p stamp that passes through 12 countries enroute to its destination into 12 equal payments all sent to those countries.

That is why the original UPU was created, and that is why this is being created.

there
is
no
dividing
of
fee's
charged

[Snrubenahs]

I agree with the good Ambassador Tyvok on the matter of reimbursement for costs incurred by public or private organisations involved in the transport of mail using an International Reply Coupon. If I am not mistaken, the current proposal seems to indicate that purchasing a single Coupon in one's home country is sufficient for the recipient of a letter to reply via standard mail, no matter how many nations are involved in the transport of this reply. This system does not indicate how the payment for the Coupon would be distributed to the nations involved or how multiple nations would be paid.

Besides this issue, the current proposal seems workable (barring further problems being found).

Rin 4
International Ambassador

there is no repayment to anybody. monies charged go to the originating nation. that is all. if the letter or IRC is purchased in country A, that one gets the money. then countries B, C, D, E, F etc carry the mail when required. when the stamps or IRC's are purchased in their country, they get the money. We thought that that had been made abundently clear through discussion and the wording of the treaty.

We do not care to open the accounting nightmare of dividing a 88p stamp that passes through 12 countries enroute to its destination into 12 equal payments all sent to those countries.

That is why the original UPU was created, and that is why this is being created.

there
is
no
dividing
of
fee's
charged

Let me be absolutely sure I understand. Postal systems are to take on the cost of fuel and the man-hours to sort through the international mail WITHOUT BEING REIMBURSED!!! OUTRAGEOUS! I would never support such a ludicrous idea.

[Grays Harbor]

I agree with the good Ambassador Tyvok on the matter of reimbursement for costs incurred by public or private organisations involved in the transport of mail using an International Reply Coupon. If I am not mistaken, the current proposal seems to indicate that purchasing a single Coupon in one's home country is sufficient for the recipient of a letter to reply via standard mail, no matter how many nations are involved in the transport of this reply. This system does not indicate how the payment for the Coupon would be distributed to the nations involved or how multiple nations would be paid.

Besides this issue, the current proposal seems workable (barring further problems being found).

Rin 4
International Ambassador

there is no repayment to anybody. monies charged go to the originating nation. that is all. if the letter or IRC is purchased in country A, that one gets the money. then countries B, C, D, E, F etc carry the mail when required. when the stamps or IRC's are purchased in their country, they get the money. We thought that that had been made abundently clear through discussion and the wording of the treaty.

We do not care to open the accounting nightmare of dividing a 88p stamp that passes through 12 countries enroute to its destination into 12 equal payments all sent to those countries.

That is why the original UPU was created, and that is why this is being created.

there
is
no
dividing
of
fee's
charged

Let me be absolutely sure I understand. Postal systems are to take on the cost of fuel and the man-hours to sort through the international mail WITHOUT BEING REIMBURSED!!! OUTRAGEOUS! I would never support such a ludicrous idea.

OOC - thats how it works in the real world.

IC - It evens out. Those who originate, get the money. That prevents each postal service a letter touches from adding their own fees and charging the destination address multitudes of fee's.

[Ilharessa]

IC - It evens out. Those who originate, get the money. That prevents each postal service a letter touches from adding their own fees and charging the destination address multitudes of fee's.

Velnayanis pursed her lips. "We would have to be opposed, then. Part of the cost within our own postal system includes protection for the carrier of the letter and the necessary costs of crossing the borders of tribal lands. Since this protection has to be in the form of armed guards to prevent one tribe from taking advantage of the mail system to disrupt mail to another, our postal system not getting paid to deliver the mail would cause problems. If you are unsure of these problems, imagine telling a bunch of people who are paid to be armed and dangerous that they're not getting any money for this job. Mail carriers have a way of mysteriously never being seen again in such instances."

[Charlotte Ryberg]

IC - It evens out. Those who originate, get the money. That prevents each postal service a letter touches from adding their own fees and charging the destination address multitudes of fee's.

Velnayanis pursed her lips. "We would have to be opposed, then. Part of the cost within our own postal system includes protection for the carrier of the letter and the necessary costs of crossing the borders of tribal lands. Since this protection has to be in the form of armed guards to prevent one tribe from taking advantage of the mail system to disrupt mail to another, our postal system not getting paid to deliver the mail would cause problems. If you are unsure of these problems, imagine telling a bunch of people who are paid to be armed and dangerous that they're not getting any money for this job. Mail carriers have a way of mysteriously never being seen again in such instances."

I cannot see how the costs should be added to the basic postage rates except for registered rates, which may be worth elaborating on for experimental purposes.

And yes, International Postal Union (IPU) is a very acceptable name for the committee in a resolution which is taking great shape.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The Imperial Chiefdom does not speak for the author, but we feel that "trade embargo" could include "trade dispute". It might be best to just use "trade dispute", since an embargo certainly would count as a "dispute" under most common definitions of the term. That said, we do not feel that the definition of "freedom of transit" needs additional clarification, especially with the expansion of part "3.)" under the "Guarantees..." clause and the inclusion of part "4.)".

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

Parts 3 and 4 do not address why we should be clarifying 'freedom of transit'. The definition is entirely too vague, as to allow foreign postal services to ship parcels inside Glen-Rhodes borders, instead of transferring them to our postal service. By specifying that 'freedom of transit' applies to intermediate postal services that are transferring parcels from one postal service to another.

IC - It evens out. Those who originate, get the money. That prevents each postal service a letter touches from adding their own fees and charging the destination address multitudes of fee's.

But surely you understand the simple economics of the situation? If national postal services are not allowed to charge extra for delivering and handling international mail, they must balance the cost elsewhere. This likely means raising rates for domestic mail, as well as charging even more to send international mail.

These intricate problems are why we believe such a sweeping postal union is an unwise endeavor. Monetary issues are easily solved in regional treaties, which is the traditional way of instituting postal unions like this.

[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 see that you, Grays Harbor, are relying upon the "real world" a bit too much. Supporting your argument with only "this is how it works in the real world" isn't a broadly accepted practice in the World Assembly. If that is how it works in the real world, you should be figuring out why it works that way, then argue those details.)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I recall that in my attempt that postal services in the IPU should be encouraged to deliver post-items in the most direct, safest and fastest route as possible which should answer the issues of cost, but I must agree that other than the IRC in exchange for the said nation's postage rate of one basic unregistered letter to be sent to a member state within the World Postal Union, money and profit should be a national issue.

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

I would suggest a revision to read:

CREATES the International Postal Union (IPU), to coordinate postal deliveries between all public and private postal services operating in all member states;

The revision would then cover private mail carriers.

[Snrubenahs]

I agree with the good Ambassador Tyvok on the matter of reimbursement for costs incurred by public or private organisations involved in the transport of mail using an International Reply Coupon. If I am not mistaken, the current proposal seems to indicate that purchasing a single Coupon in one's home country is sufficient for the recipient of a letter to reply via standard mail, no matter how many nations are involved in the transport of this reply. This system does not indicate how the payment for the Coupon would be distributed to the nations involved or how multiple nations would be paid.

Besides this issue, the current proposal seems workable (barring further problems being found).

Rin 4
International Ambassador

there is no repayment to anybody. monies charged go to the originating nation. that is all. if the letter or IRC is purchased in country A, that one gets the money. then countries B, C, D, E, F etc carry the mail when required. when the stamps or IRC's are purchased in their country, they get the money. We thought that that had been made abundently clear through discussion and the wording of the treaty.

We do not care to open the accounting nightmare of dividing a 88p stamp that passes through 12 countries enroute to its destination into 12 equal payments all sent to those countries.

That is why the original UPU was created, and that is why this is being created.

there
is
no
dividing
of
fee's
charged

Let me be absolutely sure I understand. Postal systems are to take on the cost of fuel and the man-hours to sort through the international mail WITHOUT BEING REIMBURSED!!! OUTRAGEOUS! I would never support such a ludicrous idea.

OOC - thats how it works in the real world.

IC - It evens out. Those who originate, get the money. That prevents each postal service a letter touches from adding their own fees and charging the destination address multitudes of fee's.

OOC: No it doesn't. In the real world, a private company simply doesn't deliver where it cannot afford to go. I should know. I spent 5 years shipping books, CDs and videos for an international publisher. We had to use several companies, depending on where we shipped the product. A Carribean shipping/postal company doesn't deliver to Mongolia.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Simply put, Those who originate, get the money... and then pay the next carrier to transport the mail. However, the sender cannot be charged twice for sake of convenience.