Kiri

D UNIVERSAL . POSTAL UPU International Bureau To: The designated operators of Union Weltpoststrasse 4 member countries 3015 BERNE SWITZERLAND T+41 313503111 F +41 31 3503110 www.upu.int Contact: Mr Jerry Pawsey T +41 31 350 35 48 Berne, 25 November 2022 [email protected] Reference: 4880(DOP.EPSI)1 120 Subject: Survey on updating the UPU product matrix, including product definitions and specifications Dear Sir/Madam, The 27th Congress approved the work proposais of the Abidjan Business Pian, outlining the activities aiiocated to the Postal Operations Council (POC) nciuding sub-deiiverabie D3.1: Review and update the product matrix, including product definitions and specifications, in order to align it with customer expectations. The ultimate objective of the review and update 15 to respond to ever-increasing demands from the customer, market and supply chain. With this in mmd, the UPU is seeking to ensure that it keeps pace with changes by modernizing, rationaiizing, ciarifying and simpiifying the UPU product portfolio. Customers shouid be able to choose how they wish to send and receive items from a simple product portfolio that addresses their needs. in order to ensure transparency and broad participation in the process of reviewing and updating the UPU’s product portfoiio, the POC Pienary, at its October 2022 session, approved a survey to establish various options for product portfolio reform. From the survey, an indicative set of preferred options and associated recommen dations wiIi be deveioped. The main aim of this circular letter is therefore to invite ali POC member countries to complete the survey, which is attached as Annex 1. Piease note that completed surveys shouid be returned no later than 13 January 2023. As soon as the responses have been analyzed, appropriate recommendations wiii be submitted, if appropriate, to the May 2023 POC session for consideration and potentiai adoption. With this in mmd, we urge ali POC member countries to respond to this survey, in order to contribute to the success and sustainabiiity of the UPU whiie increasing customer ioyaity and confidence. if you require any further information on any aspect of the above, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Jerry Pawsey ([email protected]), Physicai Services Development and POC Matters Coordinator. Yours faithfuliy, M3ANous JA 29, ii, 2022 N Director of Operations 4  D UNIVERSAL Annex 1 to circular letter 4880(DOP.EPSI)1 120 .. POSTAL of 25 November 2022 -- D UNION Survey on updating the UPU product matrix, including product definitions and specifications Part A: Background and context to the survey Taking into account a number of postal market trends and key takeaways (see document POC C 2 PSDE1G 2022.4—Doc 2a), a number of recommendations were proposed to POC Committee 2 for consideration. These recommendations had been developed in order to respond to identified market, customer and supply chain needs, reduce duplication and overlap, simpiify the product offering, and to enhance the portfolio of value added services. it should be noted that Committee 2 considered the proposed recommendations in the knowiedge that the responses to this survey wouid have a bearing on the future submission, if appropriate, of any recommendations to the POC in May 2023 for ts consideration and approvai. it was aiso anticipated that consideration of the proposed recommendations wouid generate interest in an approach that moves away from the letter postlparcei post delineations for product diiferentiation purposes, towards fuil integration of products based on their content (documents and goods). if the interest in this approach is confirmed by the responses to this survey (specificaliy the responses to questions 1 and 2), ts proposed that the Letter Post Regulations” wouid be renamed ‘Postal Document Regulations”, and the “Parcei Post Reguiations” would be renamed “Postal Goods Regulations”. Ali letter-post related reguiations — except for those reiating to smali packets (E format) — wouid remain in the “Postal Document Regulations”, and ali parcei-post-related regulations wouid be included in the “Postal Goods Reguiations”. SmaIi packets (E format) wouId be classified under the new “Postal Goods Regulations” cate gory, in their own section. Moreover, the provisions currently applicabie to smali packets (E format), for exam pie, in relation to remuneration, specifications and quality, would continue to appiy (.e. parcei inward iand rates wouid not be applied to small packets). The resuit wouid be a “smali packets’ section and a ‘parcel post” section under the newly created “Postal Goods Regulations” category. in considering the above approach, it is important to note that moving the provisions concerning smali packets to the newly created ‘Postal Goods Reguiations” will not affect the way they are currently remunerated. That being said, the POC Remuneration lntegration Group (RIG) wilI review the remuneration of ali basic (and suppiementary) services and develop proposais for an integrated remuneration system for the 2026—2030 period through the impiementation of resolution C 13/2021 on the integrated Remuneration Pian. it is also worth noting that the proposed approach wouid not entail the introduction of new operational processes. However, the new approach would allow processing improvements, subject to consideration by both the RIG and the POC Operations and Accounting Review Group, especialiy those Iinked to item sampling. Part B: Responses to the survey on updating the UPU product matrix, including product definitions and specifications Designated operators of Union member countries are requested to return the completed survey (without a covering letter) as soon as possibie, but no Iaterthan 13 January 2023, to the foliowing address: PSDE1G Secretariat UPU international Bureau Weitpoststrasse 4 3015 BERNE SW1TZERLAND Completed surveys can aiso be returned by e-maii to: [email protected]  2 This survey has been compieted by: Member country Fuil name Mr Ms Title Tel. Fax E-mail Signature A. Documents vs goods split Yes No Shouid the Letter Post Regulations” and ‘Parcei Post Regulations’ of the Convention Reguiations be renamed “Postal Document Reguiations” and ‘Postal Goods Reguiations”, respectiveiy? Li Li Please explain the reason for your response: 2 Shouid the provisions of the Convention Reguiations reiating to ietter-post items con taining goods (i.e. smaii packets (E format), items for the blind and M bags) be trans ferred from the “Letter Post Regulations” category to a new “Postai Goods Regulations” category? LJ D Piease expiain the reason for your response: Note 1. Questions 1 and 2 were posed in response to two of the principies defined in — the integrated Product Pian (IPP) approved by the Abidjan Congress in 2021, namely: — Differentiate products by content (documents/goods); — Create a ciassification based on content (documents and goods), remuneration and product features. Note 2. If the response to the above questions is “yes, ali ietter-post-reiated provi — sions except for those reiating to Ietter-post items containing goods (small packets — (E format), items for the biind and M bags) wouid be placed under the new/renamed — “Postai Document Reguiations” category, and ali parcei-post-related provisions wouid be piaced under the new/renamed “Postai Goods Regulations’ category. Note 3. if the provisions of the regulations on ietter-post items containing goods (smaii — packets (E format), items for the biind and M bags) were inciuded under the new! renamed “Postai Goods Reguiations” category, the reievant provisions on letter-post items containing goods, for example, in reiation to remuneration, specifications and quality, would continue to appiy (i.e. parcei inward iand rates wouid not be appiied). Accordingly, the “Postai Goods Reguiations” category wouid inciude a “small packet” section and a “parcei-post item” section.  3 Yes No Note 4. — Suppiementary services affected by this proposal would be classified accord ingly. B. Revision of G and E format item specifications (sizes and weights) 3 Should the specifications of G format items be redefined to allow for a larger maximum size? (See IPP recommendations 8 and 16.) Please explain the reason for your response: 4 Should the specifications of G format items be redefined to allow for an increased max imum weight? (See IPP recommendations 8 and 16.) Please explain the reason for your response: Note. With increased maximum size and weight specifications for the G format, bulky — Ietters (E) could be absorbed into the G format items category, thereby eliminating the existing confusion between buky Ietters (E) and smaI packets (E). The E format would therefore solely comprise small packet items. 5 If you answered yes to question 3 and/or 4, please respond to the following questions: a Should the current maximum size of G format items be maintained with the max imum weight increased to 1 kg? Ii b Should the current maximum weight of G format items be maintained at 500 g, with the maximum thickness increased to 3 cm? c Should the maximum thickness of G format items be increased to 3 cm, and the weight increased to 1 kg? d Would you recommend any other size adjustments for G format items? Please provide your response in the box below: 6 Should the specifications for small packets (E format) be redefined to better reflect today’s mail make-up? (See IPP recommendations 8 and 16.) Please explain the reason for your response:  4 Yes No 7 Should the specifications for small packets (E format) be redefined to include different sizes and weight steps? (See IPP recommendations 8 and 16.) Please explain the reason for your response: 8 If you answered yes to question 7, would you agree to the following concerning the specifications for small packets (E format)? a Current size, and weight of 1 kg b Resized with maximum Iength of 30 cm; current sum of height, width and Iength of 90 cm; and current weight of 2 kg c Resized with maximum ength of 30 cm; current sum of height, width and Iength of 90 cm; and weight of 1 kg d Would you recommend any other weight stepslformats? Please provide your response in the box below: e Would you agree to have two different weight steps/formats to optimize rates? (Note. This format separation would not be mandatory.) — Li J Note. This would serve to respond to market and customer demands and would better — reflect the realities of items being exchanged through the postal network. Introducing different size and weight steps for small packets (E format) would increase flexibility and allow for more market-oriented and competitive rates to be developed for Iighter-weightl smaller-size items. C. Registered items service to be Iimited to documents only 9 Should the registered items service be Iimited to documents only? (This would remove electronic advance data (EAD) ambiguity at tem level, expedite the processing of reg istered items containing documents, streamline the handling of items containing goods, and better manage customer expectations on tracking services.) (See IPP recommen dations 1 and 16.) LJ Please explain the reason for your response: Note. — Customers would have tracking, signature and insurance as optional value added features under the suppiementary services for items containing goods. This menu-based approach would allow them to add to the product they are purchasing. The regulations would need to be amended to add the signature feature where appropriate.  5 Yes No 10 Should the registered items service for documents be considered as a basic service rather than a mandatory suppiementary servce? (See IPP recommendations 1 and 16.) Piease expiain the reason for your response: Note. This wouid aliow for a ciear definition of the registered items service for items — containing documents as a basic service (mandatory for sending and receiving DOs), instead of as a mandatory suppiementary service. 0. Ali mandatory suppiementary services registered items, advice of delivery, — international business reply service (IBRS) and international reply coupons (IRCs) to be considered as optional — 11 Should ali mandatory suppiementary services (registered items, advice of delivery, 1BRS and IRC) be considered as optionai under a menu-based approach, whereby cus tomers can choose whether or not to nciude them as value-added features to the basic services? (See 1PP recommendations 1 and 11.) Please explain the reason for your response: Note. As the registered items service is currently a mandatory suppiementary service, — making it a basic service would keep it as a mandatory service and remove ambiguity from the suppiementary services menu-based approach. Special consideration should also be given to the iBRS, as this service has eiements that are both mandatory and optionai (and couid also be considered as a basic service if needed). E. Tracking 12 Should ali smali packets be tracked? This couid be at bag Ievei, with items tracked untii arrivai in the Country of destination using nesting and dispatch scanning (PREDES! RESDES), or at item level. L:J LJ Piease expiain the reason for your response: Note. UntraCked smaii packets (including their definition, specifications, remuneration, — etc.) couid stili be exchanged for speCIfIC fiows where market demand exists and under reievant bilateral agreements. 13 Shouid the tracking service for smali paCkets be mandatory for the sending Dl and/or the reCeiving Dl? a Sending Dl and reCeiving Dl D J b Oniy reCeiving Dl LJ Note. Bag sCanning and nesting of smaii paCkets by sending DOs is aiready manda — tory for EAD purposes.  6 Yes No 14 Should a signature be required for parcel-post items (as part of the basic service), or would tracking of a parcel-post item provide sufflcient information on delivery? (See IPP recommendation 7.) a Signature should be required b Tracking provides sufficient information Li LJ Please explain the reason for your response: c Is there a need to distinguish between the insurance service offered to senders and the liability between DOs? Please explain the reason for your response: d Should the current basic liability amount for senders be reviewed and compared to what is offered on the market? Note. Signature and insurance would exist as optiona value-added features under — the suppiementary services available for an additional cost. 15 Is advice of delivery for parcels stili necessary if tracking is provided? (See IPP recom mendation 7.) Please explain the reason for your response: Note. The exchange of a final delivery (or attempted delivery) scan could be consid — ered as confirmation of delivery. Advice of delivery and tracking could remain available as an optional value-added feature under suppiementary services for registered letter post items and insured Ietter-post items for an additional cost, where confirmation of delivery is required.