It's good to see you back here this afternoon. You see I've lost my sweater. It was heating up here so I thought I would take it off and get ready for our further discussion. Since we still have a number of questions on the table for our panelists, we've asked them to remain up here, though this is intended not just to be a dialogue with them, but a dialogue among ourselves. So we are starting a little bit late so I would echo what Nermeen and Raj said earlier about trying to keep our interventions and responses short, and I will try to do my part to try to keep my brief presentation short as well. So we do have questions on the table from the previous section, but before going to those, I wanted to do what I promised in the initial session and provide a little bit more detail about the survey we conducted recently in the task force. And if I could have the slides on work stream one, this is gonna be an update on our work to date in the task force. So here you see some details. I'll go very quickly through this, who we reached out to, who responded from different regions. We were very pleased that the responses were up from the similar survey that was done in 2019, about 24%, I believe it was, but of concern remains the fact is I think we talked about in the earlier session that we still have our work cut out for us in reaching all of the wider sector. And you see Kudos to Walter, all 16 CC members responded to the survey, but we only had 13 wider sector players from outside the CC circle. So if I could have the next slide. Now I gave you a brief foreshadowing of our conclusion and those of you who have read our report have already seen it, that there is a consensus I think among stakeholder groups in the UPU that wider postal sector players should play a role in decision making, perhaps echoing what Keith said in the second panel, it doesn't appear that wider sector players are seeking a formal governance role, but they're seeking the opportunity to provide input into the process. And you see here the responses we got from the five stakeholder groups. Wider sector players whether in the CC or outside were unanimous in saying they should play a role in decision making. Ministries and regulators were very favorable. And I think we heard that from Zaidi and Mr. Guzman this morning. D.O.'s had a more of a mixed view. And I think John Paul in his presentation this morning highlighted some concerns perhaps that, sorry John Paul, I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but I think you did highlight some concerns that designated operators have and that have to be addressed. Just as in the subsequent panel I think our wider postal sector participants are prepared to address some other questions too. The next slide please. Now we did have a question this morning and an observation that there was support for a business council. And I wanted to explain in detail why Samir and I concluded, and I should note parenthetically as I should have at the outset that unfortunately Samir is not able to be with us this afternoon. So I'll be flying solo, but with the panelists' assistance. And you'll see here, particularly among CC members, there's strong support for a business council. There's strong support among regulators and some support among governments, very little support among designated operators. But in the UPU, in other contexts we're always fond of looking for the mean or the midpoint. And so when we looked at this chart and we went down at the 50% line, we thought we're coming out in an enhanced CC. Certainly that's true. Governments and regulators, even designated operators, it's right close to the border. And I think what's important from this chart is that if there's one other takeaway we can have, it's the extent of dissatisfaction among existing CC members with the consultative committee. In its previous form, and Walter has highlighted the reforms that have occurred, the thematic chapters are new, they were not in place in the last cycle. So that's an important change that we will see the results of. But there are other changes perhaps we wanna consider because when you look at that, result, you probably don't wanna stand still in terms of the changes. But again, do note that there is a large part of our community that does already see a business council as a possibility. And so I wanna make sure that's seen as well. So the next slide. And then in our survey, we asked what CC members want and bring. And we heard from several wider sector players today, what they expect is improved interconnectivity to the benefit of both parties. Seamless and improved experience for customers, access to knowledge and experience. That's the UPU as the forum and the knowledge center and the standard setting body. Some see an ability to shape the global postal alliance potentially increased postal volumes. I think Keith spoke about that and is and Kate in their presentations. And then some others issues there as well. And then we also asked what wider sector players would bring to the table. Access to new technology is knowledge and expertise, new postal services to citizens, new interconnections. Again, the interconnectivity possibilities were there as well. But I do wanna make one point in happy to engage offline with you about the detailed results of the survey. It was interesting when we looked at them that there was a difference between how associations and individual companies responded and you have to parse that. And I think we have to remember that in the new CC we have a whole range of stakeholders that have taken part. We have private delivery companies. We have career companies who have some interests. We have other companies as well that will bring other things to the table. And that's why the thematic chapters are so important to enable them to specialize and focus in particular areas. Next slide. I think we did this one. And then this is where we come out. These were the five five options that we identified. And as I said, we've concluded that the way to go at this stage, understanding that we're talking, as John Paul said, after Abhichon where we agreed to do certain things, we're looking at what we can do at the Extraordinary Congress. And then in the future, we'll be teeing up reform and change as a permanent process, as a continuum. But for right now, I think an enhanced CC is the way to go. And then the devil is in the details as it will be regarding products and services. And I think we probably owe you a mea culpa and this actually addresses a question that China posed. Where would the CC report? And you see in this chart, and this was put there because it was the only way to make it fit on the page, but it's put as being equivalent to the POC and the CA. I mean, that's one option. But I think a lot of discussion has to go into that and that's perhaps not the preferred option that people have. Right now the consultative committee reports to the CA. But as John Paul said in his presentation, the POC is really the technical body with the operational expertise about how the network works. And so perhaps there is an argument for the reporting or the most direct relationship to be with the POC. But that is something we wanna hear from all of you about. Next slide, please. And I think Walter alluded to this as well. The consultative committee worked hard in the last cycle on a transformation proposal that was presented to the council given the separate work that was going on in the opening task force in that cycle chaired by Kenya and Belgium. It was incorporated and certain elements were included but not all elements. So here you see the proposals in the Istanbul cycle, the institutional position at the CC. The status quo, no decision-making role. Some, then there was acceptance of an enhanced advisory role, influencing and consulting. But the line was drawn at the idea of directly reporting or directly submitting a proposal to Congress. And the next slide. And some other elements of that transformation proposal. And I think this comes to a point John Paul made also about, and Samir in his closing comments talked about how the main door of the UPU was open but some side doors are closed. And John Paul highlighted some concerns that would exist with requests for access to those side doors. And those have to be explored as part of the definition of what an enhanced consultative committee would be. So right now the status quo, participation is limited in exceptional cases, duly approved by the chairs of the CA and POC. We have wider postal sector players here who can testify to their experience. I'm guessing they may say that they have been excluded in more than extraordinary circumstances but I'm not gonna prejudge that. They can speak for themselves. And then, but more importantly, the things that were on the table and that were not accepted in Abhijan and that we might wanna consider if we wanna take a second look at and include as part of an enhanced CC is requiring referral to the consultative committee of any proposed decision in the POC so it can provide input before that decision is taken. Having a designated liaison between the councils and the consultative committee. Again, coming back to John Paul's presentation, extended participation to all standing groups. There were clearly some concerns there and I'd welcome views from other designated operators and also wider sector players about that aspect of the debate because there was also a comment about the fact that in the past, wider sector players were quite quiet in council sessions. So we have to understand why that was and perhaps one reason was they felt that the decisions had gone further and they could have influenced the decisions better at an earlier stage when they were in development in the groups. But again, we have to talk about that and finally again, the direct proposal to Congress. So the next slide. So we're gonna have an open discussion now and we'll go to the next slide and just tee up some questions which have already been asked by some of you including India and China. And others. So I thought we had another slide but perhaps not. Well in any case, let's go then to the questions and I think Walter and John Paul, why don't we turn first to the question I think we received from China about Walter, you spoke. Oh, here we are, okay. So again, this is the question China asked, who should the enhanced CCB reporting to? How should it engage in the decision-making process? Let's say financing for the end, I think we wanna talk about decision-making first. But let's start with these questions and get input first from Walter and John Paul and Zaidi about, and I'm not sure do we have Mr. Guzman online or if he is online, he's more than welcome to chime in as well. But Walter, you spoke about the fact that you've doubled the size of the consultative committee. It's a big success over your Abhijan decisions but obviously you spoke also about a value proposition that the new members will I'm sure evaluate each year. So what do you think are the factors they will be looking at? Is they make that decision, I guess you said in January but then each successive year and how do we make this outreach and this inclusion sustainable over the longer term? Question. The reason why those wider personal sector players are currently joining is access to the UPU, better understanding what's possible, even access because they are providers in the supply chain management area. They understood that they can offer things to the UPU that are currently in demand. They also understood that they need to better understand what are the standards, what are the prerequisites to be actually allowed to provide those services. So we are currently moving actually through an educational process. That's really what's happening. And also to enable interconnectivity possibly between certain designated operators interested in the services why the personal sector players can actually offer. A little bit like Keith said, downstream, upstream access policies, connectivity when it comes to labeling, connectivity when it comes to these pressing digital topics. It is also very interesting currently to see that when we see that the first round of interest is now being enhanced into a second round of interest. So we have those, I would call the copycats. They are coming because their competitors are already in. And then there is those who took some time to further see and evaluate what's actually happening. And those are those who might be perceived as market dominant players in a certain pillar of the market. So these are large associations representing a major part of certain markets. These are large electronic interfaces. So this is marketplaces, marketplaces, those guys. But this is also putting pressure on us here within the UPU because we need to deal with them. And that's the reason why I'm so happy that we established already with the chair of the POC a clear working working level where I'm allowed to report to the POC as a privilege, of course. And I already reached out to certain designated operators who have experience with those electronic interfaces. Okay. When talking to them and asking them for their expectations, it is quite clear that they start to understand that the UPU is a provider of interconnectivity or facilitator of networks, access to networks and access to products and services under their own regime, under their own standards, under their own kind of certification environment. And this seems to be a very important topic. So if you take a very large electronic interface, it is highly important for them to understand what are the prerequisites to actually be allowed to act within the wider sector players or the designated operators. And there seems to be a lot of benefits and that's the reason why they are prepared to share their views and even their market data with the UPU. And if I could ask one follow up question, I was struck in your presentation, you talked about the fact that the reporters were not market dominant players. What would you see as the risk if one of them sought that role? Well, the risk would be if one of those new positions either gets vacant or a new chapter is established and we can't find anybody else, but one of those market dominant players. So the structure currently is if there are more than one applicant, then there are elections. I see. And of course, that would be immediately a topic of the management committee. So I'm not the one to decide that. That's the topic of the management committee and they are also elected. And these elections will happen, yes. But it is for the committee to elect. And I'm very happy that we were strong enough with our new members to put those reporters in place and you're absolutely right. None of them is a market dominant player in the market. And we discussed that with one or two of those market dominant players during the post expo in Frankfurt. And they said, yeah, that's fine. That's very interesting structure for us. We will participate. And then it's up to the rapporteur. And finally also to the vice chair and chair of the consultative committee. And if something happens there to the management committee to deal with these topics. But the most important thing here again is a well-balanced chapter. Also, of course, balanced in the way that we need participation also coming from all regions in the world. And also to make sure that those new members do understand that that's the kind of educational process we are trying to implement right now. What are the rules? So they need to understand the rules are decided by the UPU, by the member states. And whoever wants to play needs to play according to these rules. And when it comes to technology providers and we have seen that now with two or three world-class leaders in certain technologies, they understood that their services might be put onto the IT backbone of the UPU to the benefit of the designated operators. But it doesn't happen as such. They have to go through a certification process. And after a year or so, that has to be decided of course by the member states and in close collaboration with the POC, of course. They also have to be audited. Yeah, okay, well, that's, okay, that's fair. And that is a cost they will have to take. Okay, well, let's come back to that in a minute. If we could go to the next slide, I'm gonna ask John Paul and Zidie for their thoughts as well. But I wanna tie the question. Do you want, is that you refer that I... I wanted to tie the question. I think we've answered India's question about market dominant players. But we also had a separate question from Alessandra about some aspects of the consultative committee, whether there was a risk that it would work in opposition to the Postal Operations Council. So I think I wanted to add that question into the mix as you respond. Cause I think it's relevant to this working relationship. And then also to the question about where the CC reports. And so, and not to take too long, and I do wanna get to other questions from the floor. But Alessandra also asked a question about the USO and the differing obligations of DOs versus private operators. And, you know, we're cross fertilizing each other. We heard a question in the last panel about balancing rights and obligations. So I'm throwing a lot in there, but I wanted to add those elements to you as you think. That's a lot. But fine. Obviously these are questions that need to be asked. Obviously the order we put them in is tricky. But there's no problem. First of all, I'm the question of who the CC has to report to. I would say, if you think about it, those who think that we should create a business council and I'm not really sure about how I would say that in French business council, but it's not important. The business council would need to be close to the CA. So the CC would have to report to the POC. That's the logic there. But I don't think that's the major issue. What it makes me think, well, there's two things really. Often people say that the POC has taken the reins in this union, they do what they want, they govern the union, they have the power. But I would remind you that all of the most important decisions of the POC are submitted for approval to the council of administration. Product range and remuneration, all of those, and you'll have seen it this week, go through that process. The committees are doing that as well. We'll finish this off tomorrow. So a lot comes to the CA. The most structural decisions if you like with the POC have always been further endorsed by the CA. And I think that's healthy. There's no criticism here. So I think that's worth remembering when people say that the POC does what it wants. Now talking about working groups and task force, I don't know exactly what the number of groups is in the POC, maybe 30 or so, between 20 and 30. Apologies for my ignorance of the exact figure. Do you know how many are closed? Two. And many of them are significantly open. The addressing group, for example, is open. Everything that relates to financial services has been open for a long time. It works well, I think it's even necessary. It is the members themselves who want this opening. It's a word we've been using today. Transport and customs are closed for reasons which I touched upon this morning. So maybe one day that will be reopened, but the texts we have today provide that. It is the chairs who consult their members in the groups and that they propose possible closure. So it's the exception rather than the rule. And it is the chair of the POC who rubber stamps that decision. So I don't want to dodge the question, but I do think that the question of where the CC reports to is not the major issue. What is important is a rich dialogue with the CC. And once again, without any obligation involved, I think spontaneously these dialogues have begun. There were three meetings since Abidjan and three times, Walter came to us and explained where things stood. And as I said this morning, what you need to do is continue that same process with the working groups. And I think as we move towards S3, we can look forward to this dialogue. I don't know if that responds to all of the questions that you asked. Your laterious standpoint? Not much. I think we have experts from chair of CC, chair of POC. They have years of experience in terms of involvement of wider stakeholder. I think that is something that we can consider. But it has to be fit for purpose. I think we all have to agree. How is the reporting wise, I think, is up to the members to decide. I mean, we have the option. But it has to be fit for purpose. And it has to be a clear ruling on what is the scope of enhanced CC or whatever. And in UPU, we all know we have always have check and balance. No committee really can decide by its own. But in terms of the risk, I think it is being taken care of, I think. We shouldn't be thinking about a committee to overrule other committees. I think we all have a check and balance. Right. That's a great point as well. So you've heard our panelists here. We have the question up on the screen about where the consultative committee should report. That was John Paul stress. Perhaps that's not the key question. The key question is I think at least one or more speakers or questioners this morning pointed out is the key is to enhance the dialogue and make sure it's rich and back in force so that we mutually benefit from each other's insights and ensure that we inside this institution are hearing from those who are right now. Right now largely outside of it. So I'll open to the floor and I may not have Alessandro others. I will come to you in a second, but I want to give my colleague from Canada a chance in the spirit of cross fertilization between panels. The chance to speak as well. Thank you very much, Stuart. And thank you to the panelists. My question. I have two questions. I'll let you answer them as you wish. If you could please pull up slide 12 on the big screen and just keeping in mind slide 50 and slide 12. If you could go to slide 12 International Bureau. This was a slide that was presented. I know you're still getting there. It's a slide that was presented by Walter during the presentation made by the consultative committee. Sorry, it looks like it's a bulky switch. And I think 50 is the one we're about to come to. Right. That's right. So I'm just kind of bouncing between slide 50 and slide 12. Just as we're pulling up that slide, Walter, in that slide, in that pictogram, you had the consultative committee reporting to the POC. And you had the consultative committee reporting to the CA. That's the slide. And in the slide, you don't have to switch to slide 50. But in slide 50, the question is, who does the CC report to? So if you could clarify what the intent of this slide was where you show sort of a dual reporting, but then later on in the presentation, we talk about, well, where should the CC point? It appears from that slide 12 that the CC functionally does feed into the work of both councils. So that's my first question. The second question actually draws on what Mohammed had to say, but also draws on a comment made by the representative from the government of the Netherlands, I believe. It was either the regulator or the ministry in a discussion about it a year and a half ago when he said the following. He said something to the effect of form should follow function. And so if we look at the way that the CC does its work, I'm wondering if we really should pay more attention to the function part and try to come up with some ideas on how proposals that go from the POC and from the CA to Congress should go through. So those of us who work in government are very familiar with doing business impact tests, gender-based analysis impact tests. Some jurisdictions do impact tests based on the impact on youth or the socio-economically vulnerable. Is it possible to retain the intergovernmental character of the UPU while at the same time having the CC report to both councils, as indicated in slide 12, but also formalizing analytical lenses we use for Congress proposals to say, have concerns from the CC bin met, what did we use as sort of the test criteria before the document even hits, before the ink hits the paper. I wonder if we can start looking at more clever policy-based and regulatory-based approaches that maybe de-formalize it, but make it extremely effective at the front end. Thank you. I hope my question was clear. Let me know if it wasn't. Thank you, Raj. That was very clear. And before I turn it over to Walter, I think that comes back to the point earlier in the presentation about whether a referral process is appropriate. And then I did not share the points from our survey, but there was an extent. Those of you who responded will remember that there were extensive questions about which areas wider sector players should have the ability to play a role. And that really gets to your question about whether reporting to both councils is appropriate. But without, I'll turn it over to you, Walter. Thank you. Raj, thank you very much for bringing up Slide 12. That slide is actually used for answering questions coming from the wider sector players possibly interested in the CC. And it reflects the current reality that we are actually trying to engage as much as we can with both CA and POC. We established that more or less informally, but it works very well. And the purpose is to draw on the expertise and knowledge of our new members and establish that kind of knowledge transfer, where it is the knowledge, I mean, to those standing councils. It comes a little bit back to what I said earlier today when I said, we know that we have to qualify ourselves to be recognized by certain bodies. Yes, basically to sit there and basically listen and do nothing is no input. So we want to be relevant and we need to have that structure in place. When it then comes to whom should we report? Well, in the end, the decision making, like Jean Paul said, is the governments. So in the end, the governments, because they are the members, will have to qualify if whatever the CC or POC is bringing up is up to what has been decided as a deliverable. So that's the background of this chart. It is a chart to explain how we are trying to develop our relationships and does not reflect the official charts used on our homepage. Thank you. I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Thank you, Walter. Did anyone else have a comment? No. Well, let me, I think we have requests from Pranoy and David and Vincenzo, but I think Pranoy was first. Thank you, Stuart. And thank you for addressing the question raised by India about the dominant players. Still, the taste of pudding is in eating, so we can only visualize if when some dominant players become member of the CC or so. So what would be the scenario? But we see that across and our domestic sector already. So having said that about the reporting structure, I understand that there should not be much of issue as also pointed out by Jean Paul and any even in questionnaire also it was mentioned how the decision making process is there in different countries and whether the stakeholders are involved. And the result of survey also indicate yes, they are involved in most of the cases, but having not the say in final decision making. And yeah, so I can give an example of India Post, wherever a major policy coming or so we have to put it on the website for the wider sector consultation and how to take into account whatever the inputs are there and that is for across the ministries. So that process is there and those are addressed and again put with the responses for the public domain, but final decision ultimately it is of the government how it is coming out to be. So this is in across in many countries established process and here if it through comes through report years or otherwise through POC and ultimate approvals and that comes from the CA. So I don't see any contradiction there coming out. So that is I think very much a process which is established and can further be refined. The second point wanted to mention about also touched by John Paul about the financial services and we have for quite a few time reminded this that already like multilateral agreement or the membership of the postal payment services user group, number of products which are already there are we have been given the KPIs and deliverables to make wider sector players along with DO's members and to sign those that multilateral agreement. So it is it can be a laboratory or an initially stage let the financial services we are already there. So who are the wider sector players can come and integrate. And once they sign and multilateral agreement and the user group, they become part of institutional integration with the union. Thank you. Thank you for knowing that's very interesting and insightful and thank you for bringing up the point that I admitted that part of the rationale for the approach we adopted of the enhanced CC is that it mirrors what countries do nationally. And you've described India's case actually it's the same in the United States for international postal policy. We consult wider postal sector players as well, but at the end of the day it's a government decision. I think we have David and Vincenzo and I think Mr. Hu from China wants to follow up as well. But I think David wanted to go to slide 52. So if we could put that up please. Actually can we start at 12 and then go to 50 and then 52. Okay. Stay at 12. Yeah. The point I wanted to make is the consultative committee should I think should report to both. It really depends on what the issue is. If it's a government issue it should be reporting to the CA and if it's an operational issue it should report to the POC. So if we go to slide deck 50 now. Okay. So if you look in the right the blue box it says enhanced CC and then it's got the three bodies CA, POC and it's got the CC. The CC after all it's a consultative body. It doesn't have any voting rights. So the fact that in this slide it appears under the Congress is not in itself significant. One way you could modify this organogram, this organization chart is to have dotted line relationship going under the CC, under the chart and then going one up to the PC POC and another dotted line going to the CA. I mean that would capture the idea that they are putting in their advice to both the POC and the CA depending on what the nature is. Whether it's a organizational issue or operational issue or a governance issue. If we could go to 52 I would appreciate that. I thought this is a very, very interesting slide. If we look at the first box that's brown. I said it's so bad I have to switch between glasses here. Okay it says was not accepted through a consultative opinion that the CA and the POC bodies shall consider the CC opinion before making any decisions on related issues. Now in English the word shall is a very significant legal term which means must. It's a clear obligation. Now if you said may that means it's sort of an option you don't have to. I think that, I mean realistically speaking the CC doesn't have any voting rights but it has opinions which may be valuable. So if you change the language to something that said something like the CC may send through the IB to the CA and POC their views respectively on governance and operational issues for their consideration by the CA or POC. That doesn't create an obligation for the CA or the POC to consider it but it does give a right to the CC to send via the secretariat via the IB this information for the consideration. So the POC could say this is interesting we want to discuss it or the POC could say well valuable but we don't necessarily need to discuss it. So it would give the CA and the POC the right to choose whether they wanted to consult it or not or use it or not but yet it would give the CC the right to send this information. So I think I mean that's one way I don't see why member countries or the regulators or the designated operators would object to a change in language that along those lines so that the CC had the right to send the information but the CA or the POC could choose whether or not they wanted to actually use it and just a small suggestion. Thank you David. That's a very interesting suggestion. I think the thought of the transformation proposal at the time it was developed before Abhijan was to try to put make it more of a requirement so that it was certain that the CC would be consulted and that CC members felt in a way that would enhance their value in the organization and ensure they had a voice. And Siva I believe you have a point. Thanks very much student. Just to try and give the context of this particular slide so this slide tries to capture a range of proposals that were made by the CC to the task force the then task force during the last cycle and it indicates which elements of that package of proposals were accepted and those that weren't. And so one of the things that the CC had proposed was to move away from the status quo which is really about they already have the opportunity to put forward papers to the different committees, different councils and so on. And those papers can be considered, rejected or ignored. But what I think the CC was proposing to the task force of the last cycle was to sort of make it a bit more mandatory. That is to say we've gone to the trouble of actually pulling together some thoughts, some ideas, some contributions to the debate. We would like the committee or the council concerned to actually give this some thought and take a formal decision whether to incorporate some of those ideas or to reject it. And so that I think was the intention but member states in their considered opinion didn't think it relevant at that point. So the real question for us is in the next generation of the CC is this something that we should relook at and consider. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. John Paul, your comment please. Yes, if I could just come in there. I understand what David is saying. And in fact I'd like to reassure you, David. Whatever happens when there is a request or a demand of any kind it is studied. The question is raised in any event and it is debated. Even if you look at the status quo I think it does afford some protection even as things stand. Now as for the whole issue of the way in which the CC is going to feed into this working group well there are umpteen ways of doing that. You could for instance give a paper with opinions to a group that might be a closed group. You could grant somebody the status of observer either as a standing observer or you could have someone from the CC going to raise a particular topic and then withdrawing to allow people to continue to discuss the matter among themselves in a particular group. There's so many different ways of doing this. And I think we're going to have to learn as we go on this a bit because there's all sorts of things that might happen. And if you talk about opening up by force as it were compelled or compulsory opening up then you will you'll end up with a situation where in fact because it's been opened up people only talk about banal things in the meeting room and the real decisions are going to be made outside when people talk among themselves outside of the meeting. That's what they'll do if they feel that opening up has been forced upon them. So I do think we have to keep our minds very open as to all the possible ways of achieving what we want to achieve here. We want the members of the CC to come along with things that they can bring to the table that they can feed in. We don't want them just standing there looking on. We want them actually to be involved, to be doing things to challenge us and make us move forward. Thank you. Thanks, Trumpo. That's a helpful point as well. I think Vincenzo had a comment. Perhaps I'm not sure if you still do or... Very quick. Well, I had two comments but the first was already resolved by David and Jean-Paul Hansen. So for me it's clear and agree completely what Jean-Paul said. There was another sentence by Walter but I don't know if we have to deal with this panel which was related to cooperation. He said, namely, there seems to be a lot of benefits. Well, apart from the verbal sentence, can you elaborate better those benefits related to... Oh, you don't remember what you said that. Otherwise, I mean... Benefits in what kind of connection? You were talking about the cooperation between stakeholders and design operators. You said there seems to be a lot of benefits. Can you elaborate better that or... Absolutely. Yes, benefits because we are living in a very diverse, highly complex, fully digital environment and some of the new members are very much engaged with the whole sector. That might be the designated operators but that's also the private operators serving them, helping them in certain specific topics which are at the heart to be solved by designated operators right now. None of the designated operators can solve those problems alone. They need third parties helping them and these are benefits which are coming into the UPU and those operators, mainly IT operators, machine learning operators, those guys, they are coming and they are doing two things. Either they are offering their services but they have to be compliant and certified and audited by the UPU. They are only allowed to play if they're in line. They have to dance according to our tune and not to their tune. To make that very blunt. The other point is they also have enormous expertise because they are operating in some countries with certain special regulations and they can give that expertise directly to us and help the customs group and help the transport group because they are directly interacting there and they are willing to do that. But again, this comes under the umbrella I said we have to prove that this is really true now. That's the structure we are trying to put in place. Thank you. Thanks for your second Vincenzo. Great. Before I come to Nermine, I think we had a request for the four from China so Mr. Hu, I'll give you the four. We have attempted to answer your two questions regarding what an enhanced CC might mean and where it might report. But we would welcome your thoughts as well on how you think that might be approached. Okay, thank you. It's a player to hear many different comments from our dear colleagues. I'd like to come back to my question in the morning that is how to understand and enhance the CC. So according to my understanding, now new members of CC have been approved and we have now there are 13 new members and also six thematic chapters have been established. I think that's already a kind of enhanced CC. So I think the point is we believe the reform should give priority to enhance the function of CC. That can promote the cooperation and interconnections with DOs or with POCs. So we do not think now we have any drastic need to upgrade CC parallel to CA or POC. So that's my understanding. Thank you. Thank you. That's very helpful to understand your view and I'd welcome other views from around the room. World too since we're online as well. But that's a very good point. When we talk about an enhanced CC, we're really talking about an enhanced CC plus because we shouldn't give short shrift to what we did in Abidjan. We already have made changes that have brought the new dynamism that Walter has highlighted with the new members and really the organizational changes he's made and that the CC has adopted with thematic chapters I think will allow much more structured and fruitful interaction. So again, and I did one, as I said, the Mia Culpe at the start, the slide depicting the CC as equivalent to the CA and POC was not intended to be definitive. That was for our deliberation and I think we're hearing that a reporting relationship to both councils is necessary, is appropriate, depending on the subject. I think that point was made, but that it's also understood that the role remains consultative as in the name and that as an intergovernmental organization, it is governments that will continue to make the decisions. I mean, John Paul has made the point that the POC was to include operational expertise that DOs represent but it is still governments and member countries that are represented in the POC as they are in the CA. So we have a multi-step process there where governments validate all the decisions that we make. Looking around the room, who have I met? Nermin, I'm sorry. Come back to you. It's okay, Stuart, you're doing great. I have a comment on a question from a statistic for the point he clarified upon finishing the question on the values can be presented through the CC because these are the same requests of the wider Bostel sector players from our Bostel network. They are looking for the standard developed by the network and they are, and as Catherine said today, but the BTC has developed great solutions that can be used by wider Bostel sector players. So the values you are talking about that can be presented from the CC members are already requested by the wider Bostel sector players. So I believe there is none. And if my understanding is not right, please correct me. Thanks Nermin. That's a very interesting question. I think there's a feeling they felt they could contribute in the development of those standards that from their outside perspective, they've got their separate networks. Keith has highlighted some of their things they do with USPS in the US. Walter, you're more of an expert on this area than obviously than I am. Yes, my favorite topic standardization has been mentioned. Standardization is at the core of all this. And now I might shock you again. The UPU is not an internationally recognized standardization body. So what's currently happening, and I give you a very good example, is that standardization bodies like ISO, SEN, the European Standardization Committee, Etsy, ITU, they are creating standards. In the European context, we do what we can creating standards for the fully liberalized postal market to be as open as possible with the involvement of all stakeholders. When it comes to the UPU, we currently ensure that those standards in Europe created are aligned with the UPU. The worst thing would be that they are drifting apart. Again, these standards are now started to be much more recognized because they are the basis of creating business. In a highly digital environment, this is paramount. Therefore, what's currently happening is that a lot of wider postal sector players in Europe are now drawing to these postal standards, which to a certain extent, I think even 80% of those postal standards are already directly related to the use of data. Electronic advanced data is our acronym for that. They are also bridging between UPU-related standards and also linking into the European data-related environment. The best example is electronic advanced data from the UPU-designated operators linking into the European Customs Data Model. They are not the same. They are complementing each other, and we need to map that. These things are coming. When I then talk about the wider postal sector players, they know that because they already have the experience to bridge between them. This is a lot of value also for the PTC because the PTC, by definition, is running on these UPU specifications, which they call standards, because they are standards when it comes to the whole community here when it's only designated operators. These things are happening. It's highly complex, but it works. To develop those standards further, what are the next line of standards? Product safety, transport security, sustainability, all that kind of harmonisation for the whole sector. We will need the wider sector players to come up with solutions directly interconnected. This is partly a governance problem and partly an operational problem. There's another question. John Paul wanted to come and also brief it. Yes, it's true we could spend the whole afternoon on standards. And we certainly have someone who knows the subject inside out on the panel. But I do want to add just one brief comment. What you say is true officially, formally. When we talk about standards, well, in fact, what we do here is not really to work on standards as the word standards is understood internationally. What we do is we promote interoperability rules that apply among ourselves. We call them standards, but they're not exactly standards. It's true that elsewhere people do do standards. Now interconnection is a topic that really is a very dangerous one. And if you start talking about it, you're on a very, very slippery slope. In fact, you might even describe yourself as being in a minefield because everyone's trying to promote their own interests. People want to keep their customers. They want to try to make sure that their subcontractors work with them and only them. They want to try to control things as much as possible. Everyone wants to do that. Now, I know that there was actually a time where in Europe, within the CEN, I've kind of lost track of when this was. But there was a time when there was a lot of reluctance about putting in place standards for interconnection. And the people who were most against it were private operators because they didn't want customers to be able to switch easily from one to another. Because sometimes standards actually protect the customers. They can even be seen as being a bit protectionist in some cases. So, and this really is my last comment on this. It's all very well to say that there may be standards that are adopted somewhere else in the world. But let's not end up with ICS-2 here again. Because if we're going to end up in a situation where we have to respect CEN standards in Europe and then other standards somewhere else for ASEAN and then some different set of standards for Amerkosur, then we're not going to make our lives easier. In fact, we're going to do quite the opposite. I just wanted to add that comment to what Walter has said. But as I say, he knows an awful lot more about this than I do. Thank you. Paul, that's a fascinating point about interconnection and a reminder of the complexities we've discussed in the POC about different regional standards that are emerging. Let's see. Oh, Nermin, you wanted to follow up. Sorry, Stuart, but again, for comment for Mr. Trezek's response. Actually, the standard board is open and CEN attends the meetings. And what you said is happening right now. There have been alignment for developing motor standards for whatever happened in Europe. We are not part of Europe and we're not interested in the standard that's designed especially for Europe. But we are a member of standard board and we are engaged in this work and we know one single fact. It is efficient for the interoperability among 192 member countries. And we don't need to be like issuing standard body to be something. It is efficient and it is a base for good technology that interconnect this integrated supply chain that already has responded to the requirements of AED and has responded for the customs authority based regulation of Q2 convention and whatever is given to the BOSTA regulation. So it's already exists here. So the standard board is open. So the UP is not that closed. So that's my point and thank you so much for your response. Thanks. I think we'll leave it there and see if we have other questions. Vinchenzo wants to speak. Raj, were you asking for the floor earlier or did I mistake it? I was, but if others are looking for the floor I'm happy to see it until the pace slows down. It's a good discussion. That's very generous and so we'll hold you and Vinchenzo. Let me look around the room to see if there's anyone else. We have some others in the room we have not heard from yet. So I want to make sure you have a chance to speak. I've decided not to channel my interoperable in free and walk around with a mic and force you to. Since we're having a lively enough discussion anyway. Well, let's Raj go back to you then and I think we will finish up shortly because I think we left a lot of things hanging in the second panel and I think we really need to get to the discussion on products and services. We've seen it's interrelated as some of the points you made about the standards board I think are relevant to our discussion of products and services. But Raj, please. So my question is from Mohammed and I want to give you a bit of a hard time here, my friend. When I was working in regulatory affairs, one of the things that we would look for, one of the things that we were very mindful of was industry capturing processes or industry capture on regulatory processes. And so when we're having this discussion on an enhanced CC and we see the hard work that Walter has done in growing the CC membership, we see Kate earlier in the session was talking about the growing IMAG membership and that's a good thing. These groups becoming more robust and attracting a wide range of players within their rank and file. That's a great thing. It creates critical mass, but it also can create a problem when super large partners come on board and they tend to dominate the discussion. And because their interests are of a scale that are so large and they have the resources to pursue them, sometimes extremely aggressively, it is very possible if we do enhance the powers of the CC or any other entity that would feed into the CA and or the POC as a regulator or as a former person working in regulations, I would think there's an opportunity for industry capture of processes. And when these entities feed into everything from changes in regulations, changes in really in anything, there's a possibility that large interests can swamp out small interests and that specific interests can play perhaps a stronger role than they ought to.  I'm very curious on what your thoughts are on that particular matter of large interests maybe playing a bit more of an influence than they would under a current structure where there are very intergovernmentally based checks and balances. Thank you. Yeah, if you'd like to take that, sir. Okay. Yeah. I think the first one, maybe my answer is the government, I believe, is not knowing all the things nowadays. No government have the answer for all the problems. I think that's number one. I think that's why we need a wider stakeholder's engagement. I think that is the underlying reason. If the government knows all the answers, we don't need all this stakeholder's discussion, we can decide tomorrow, we can solve all the humanity problem tomorrow. Because the government do not really know how to solve a problem, so we need to gather, get information, get the feedbacks, and some of the solutions or decision of the government, not necessarily the correct decision most of the time. Some of the time government make wrong problem, wrong decision as well. And there is a way for us to change some of the wrong decision. I think this is a feedback, loops, a process. But the thing is we cannot stop from not making decision. I think that is something that we need to take. Sometime because the problem is too much, we prefer to KIV most of the time, most of the problem. I think this is not something that is good for UPU in particular. Talking about the risk, I think UPU, I think we have put enough control. We have sufficient committees, I think to have the check and balance. I think you got the points. I also want to even raise some of my concern for CC as well. Because there is a potential that is going to be dominated by a big vendor. No, I think CC also I think the same way. I think there must be mechanisms. How can we address that one? I have no answer for that one. But I think you bring a good point. And I think this is something that we need to think as well. I think that is my point. Thank you. Thank you very much. That is very helpful. And I think that comes back to the question we asked Walter earlier about market dominant players and their potential role. And just again in the spirit of cross-fertilization, Raj, and you mentioned IMAG and Kate, and I think going back to the question, I believe it was BICE that asked from Ghana, asked it of her at the end of your panel, asking if the members of IMAG were the same as some of the large courier companies. I think they are. She can answer better than I can, but I think it's distinct sub-entities of those big courier companies. So, I mean, she's better placed to answer that than I am. Keith is as well, but I think a lot of these big companies are not monoliths. They have a lot of different entities. So, if they were here, it might not mean that they were here as the totality, but it might be one sub-section. We have to finish up now, and let me go to one more slide to the slides at the end. Yeah, we've already done this. Yeah, go back one more. Oh, I'm sorry. You already talked. I didn't see you up there. I was looking at the slide. Okay. Thank you, Stuart, for giving the floor. So, this is not a question from me, but I'd like to express my very general view with regard to our work on the stream, work stream one. So, my view is, I think it is almost correspond to the view expressed by Walter. So, we recognize that our objective in the opening is to maximize benefits of the postal sector. In doing so, we believe it is important for us to carefully listen to voices from all the possible stakeholders, both in the CA and the POC, in a very balanced manner. As currently the postal market is relevant with many other markets, we need to have a holistic view to make the postal sector sustainable and more prosperous. It is not our way forward to scramble for the pie in the wider postal market. We should find a good way forward where DOs and WSPS collaborate for their mutual benefits by extending their own knowledge, expertise and technological solutions. That is conducive to developing improved and innovative services as well as expanding the pie for the relevant market. So, UPU can provide an effective hub for such collaboration, which we believe is conducive to ensuring fiscal sustainability of the UPU as well. And we, of course, as long as we can achieve a mutually beneficial relationship among stakeholders, we are open to any organizational structure to be decided by member countries in the future, perhaps hopefully in the next year's extraordinary congress. This is just my personal view, but thank you for listening to my intervention. Thank you. Thank you, Yuri Otaka. I appreciate it, and we will reflect on that as well. I think we have one last request for the floor from Papu, and I'm not sure where Chief Noyo is. Ah, there you are. Yes. Please. Thank you very much, Chair, for sitting the floor to Papu as an observer in this meeting. And, Chair, you will agree with me. I've held back my arrows the whole day, and I'm trying to come with something slightly new for consideration by the members. And I've looked at the proposals for the reporting by the enhanced CC, and to me, the issue really has to be reduced to something like a simultaneous equation if we are talking mathematics. And I'm trying to look at the setup in a particular country where we have three distinct layers. The government as the policymaker, the regulator or regulatory authority is overseeing the functioning of the sector, and then we have the players, and the players are the designated operator and the private players. These roles are very clear. At country level, there is no stampede for policymaking by players, and the regulator is not challenged in terms of his roles and responsibilities. Then I take that with the computers you can cut and paste. I'm trying to paste it here at the UPU level where the UPU is an inter-governmental organization. Inter-governmental organization. And, therefore, at the highest level, we have Congress where government sits, and now I'm trying to see where I need to paste the enhanced CC. And I am persuaded, the chairman, to say that for consistency and avoiding capture of roles or functions, there is need for a clear distinction between what enhanced CC or what POC can do. It's not more a question of who they report to but what they can do, the powers that they have. POC deals with commercial issues. They do not have powers to change the convention, powers to change the treaty. And I would want to promote that kind of approach when we are dealing with having the enhanced CC. We definitely need them, but we need them to play their role. We all cannot play one role. We all cannot be called keepers. Some have to be strikers, some defenders, some sitting on the bench. And I believe we have to find a way of striking that balance. I see the floor back to you, chairman. Thank you, chief Moyo. That also is a very thoughtful intervention that we will keep in mind. And I think it tracks with the discussion we've heard today that this is an intergovernmental organization. It is governments that will remain sovereign and make the decisions. It's a question of how we best get the input, the expertise that consultative committee members, wider sector players bring to us. And I take your point that perhaps we've talked, I think during our discussion, that the CC would be able to provide input to both councils. I think as you suggest, probably in practice, there would be more items that would link them with the POC than the CA, since we often in the CA here deal with governmental matters rather than operational postal ones. But they would still have the ability to provide input. I'm going to sum up in a minute, but before I do that, I wanted to thank all of you for your interventions. I would also like to invite you to send to the task force secretary any summary of your interventions that you would like to make just so we could have it in record. We have notes, obviously, but if you want to provide it to us in more detail, that would be appreciated. Again, Chatham House rules. If you don't want us to say who it came from, we'll just say the comment was made. Again, all of this input has been extremely valuable. We think we've got it down, but if you want to send us something to ensure we've absolutely got it correct, that would be great. Before I do the summary, just these slides, I don't think we have time to get into the issue of what this is part of what the obligation of wider sector members might be in exchange for whatever benefits they receive from the consultative committee or ultimately from the separate discussion, we're going to have them products and services, but I just recommend we all think about the new system that Walter talked about that the consultative committee has introduced. And going to the next slide, just questions to reflect on in the future. Perhaps we'll come back to these in a task force meeting. It may be premature to consider these right now, in line with China's comments on other elements of the membership changes and whether those need to be revisited. Should there be a fixed fee? Should there be charges to access some or all products and services? And how do we recover investments made so far in developing products and services? And to play devil's advocate, if we're an intergovernmental organization, should we try to recover the investments made in those products and services? Because at the end of the day, it's governments that made those investments and governments represent the totality of the sector. DOs are an important part of that, enabling us to carry out our functions under the acts of the union, but we all recognize that we also, the wider sector players are under us too. So I'm just going to, a couple of key points. I think the takeaways we've taken from this meeting is, as I said, inputs to both councils should be possible. We have to decide how formal that should be in line with what one questioner asked. It could be required. It could be shall or it could be may. We have to think about that. We need to consider effective engagement at the working level and what the appropriate starting point for that working level is. We have had attendance and participation in councils. We've heard, I think, that there has perhaps been less participation in working groups. Though I take no means point, that the Standards Board, among others, has been open and has had input. We had a whole series of questions about dealing with dominance and capture within the CC and that is something we will have to deal with prospectively. We don't have any market dominant players right now. We may have some on the horizon. So that is something we'll have to remain in tune to.  So in summing up, I'd just say finally, we have a clear path forward that we're going to recommend to the CA tomorrow. And if the CA agrees, we will pursue the route of an enhanced CC. But that doesn't mean our work's done. We've still got a lot to do with the devil. We'll be in the details and trying to figure out all of these elements so that we can create a package that responds to the needs of the wider sector, that respects the concern of all the stakeholders here. So thank you all for your active engagement today. And I think we're going to take 10 minutes, 15 minutes. 10 minutes. So try to be back here at 4.30 so that you can grill our participants on panel 2. And as Raj suggested for us, I hope you've got your knife sharpened. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If you can please get over to your desks or chairs or if you're standing because you've been sitting too long, we'll get started here in a minute or two. So ladies and gentlemen, if you could please take your seats and we will get started. Thank you. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I think we're good to go. International Bureau, are we okay to start? Yeah, we're okay to start. Peter, we're okay to start. Okay. So ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. We're going to pick up here with this second session, dealing with products and services. Now, just so that we have a good understanding of what the actual products and services are, we have under the CAC2 there was an expert team that was comprised of the team leaders or the leaders which were Austria and Uruguay. And so for the purpose of walking us through the various products and services that were examined, we have a presentation by Peter Kohler from Austria. So Peter, please walk us through the products and services that we'll be looking at, the floor is yours. Thank you very much, Raj. First of all, let me start with two observations. Normally, I really hate it when people thank each other because I think time is wasted heavily, in particular with some UPU meetings. But I've made two observations. The first observation is that the quality of slides of the UPU has increased tremendously. The second observation is that I also think the mood regarding such discussions we're having today has changed a lot and really improved. And I find it very fruitful listening to all of you and having such insightful and, as I said, fruitful discussions. So thank you everyone who's responsible for that. May it be the moderators, may it be the one who created a new PowerPoint template. Thank you very much. This is really well noted. Regarding our work, when it comes to the expert team of opening up products and services, basically everything is written on this wonderful slide here anyway. What we're doing, we're trying to have technical reviews of three different baskets. The first basket is the one which consists of products which have already made accessible since the Istanbul cycle. And with this basket, we're going to discover why those services and products have not been used and what we might be able to do better in the future in order to make those products relevant for wider postal sector players. With basket two and three, it's a little bit different as these products and services, they have not been opened yet. And here we ask ourselves the question, what shall we focus on, what might be impact assessments, what might be rules of opening certain products and services. And this is kind of a little bit of a painstaking to be honest with you. In the beginning, it was kind of overwhelming because we're dealing with 22 different products and services. We've produced 110 pages so far, which is a very, very long read to be honest with you. I can only ask you to have a read. Some things are very interesting, some things honestly, to be honest with you, they can be quite boring, but overall we've produced a huge document so far, which serves as the basis for every discussion we're going to have in the upcoming months. As I said, 110 pages so far and 22 products we have analysed. Next slide, please. And this is already going to be my last slide. We're going to jump into the exact and individual products and services in the upcoming slides. Anyway, there's four things I would like to note. The first thing is that we have received lots of general comments which they are right, but they don't move the discussion forward. So the more specific any comments are, the better it is for our work to move forward and develop something together. The second thing is that just by analysing the direct injection model, Kate and Keith kind of were proposing this morning, it makes you realise that you have to have a very holistic approach towards this exercise. You can't have a look at all these products and services on an individual basis. So that's what we're going to have in the future, a more holistic approach and try to bundle things together in order to have products and services, which makes sense. For example, if you look at one product which is UPU clearing, it doesn't make any sense to have a wider postal sector player have access to UPU clearing without having access to any other system or product. The third thing I'd like to note, so far with every single document, we have realised and gotten the feedback that it doesn't make sense to talk about things without a proper impact analysis. We haven't had any single impact analysis or market analysis so far. If anyone ever has something, has already produced it, will produce it, please share it as soon as possible, although there is still a couple of months time as we see this as a process which will go on for many more months. The fourth point, and this is my final note I'd like to make, no matter what the impact or the input might be, whatever feedback you want to give us, anyone out there, any state, any regulator, any wider postal sector player, any designated operators, please provide your feedback. It is really, really appreciated. I see this work as personally very, very interesting. It gives you kind of the feeling of strategic product management and we only can succeed if we do this together on a global basis. So thank you very much. We're going to get into more detail now with you, Rajan and Namin. Thank you. Thank you very much, Peter. So I have a question before we move into the slide. So we've got the next slide up. I think we need to be on slide 64. My question for you, ladies and gentlemen, and this is not to name and shame. It's not to embarrass. It's just in the spirit of understanding what kind of discussion we're going to have. I was a university professor for 10 years and so this is sort of, who did the readings? So when we look at CAC2222.2, Doc2A and Doc2B, who did the reading? 109 pages. Put your hands up, please. Okay. If I... It's a good reading. But the point that we need to make is, ladies and gentlemen, again, we have an extraordinary congress that's coming up in October of next year. And it is so important for all of you as member countries and representatives of that debate to really understand what are the actual products that we're dealing with? What are the actual services we are dealing with? How do they interrelate with each other? Who is asking for them to be opened up and for what reason? And if we don't have a common understanding, even within this house, it becomes very difficult to invite others to come in the house if we're ourselves, aren't speaking the same language. So I know who does that Canada guy think he is telling us what to do. You can't tell me what to do. It's not that. It's encouraging you to become educated on the work. It's 109 pages, but it's not dense reading. But they do provide you with a very clear understanding of what we're actually talking about when we talk about products and services. There's additional reading that provides you with member country specific and organization specific inputs. And so you can see what did IMAG say about this? What did China say about this? What did the U.S. say about this? What did Canada say? Spain, France, et cetera. So those are all available. And I would encourage you when we sort of get some momentum here with this conference and we come back at S3 and we're looking at proposals for Congress. It's very important for you to understand this. So on this first slide, when we think about the products and services that we're talking about, you'll recall that they were divided into three baskets. Basket one, two, three. The first basket of products and services were approved at the 2016 Istanbul Congress for opening to the wider postal sector. We see in the second basket, there's a number of very interesting proposals that deal with access to the IP secretariat for a range of services. And that's, it's one of those between basket one and basket three. That's where the majority of the attention seems to be focused. But we don't really ever get into a robust discussion of the ins and outs and pros and cons of basket two. So we'll put the IP on the hot seat as well, even though they're neutral facilitators. We'll see if we can squeeze some juice out of the lemon there. And then basket three, of course, is sometimes in performance discussions inside our organization. We call them stretch objectives. So what are we, where can we go down the road if we're thinking about not just interoperability or working together in an integrated fashion, but we think about where does the future take us and what might that look like. If there's a discussion there, great. If you have concerns about it, air them. If you have a particular affinity for one or a few of them, air it. And if you hate it, tell us that too. Let's go to the next slide. So we can structure, sorry, members here can structure your questions and your comments and how you want to engage based on asking a couple of sort of three basic questions. The first is under that demand vertical column, which is, and perhaps this is a good question for our partners that are coming from outside the tent, so to speak, is that what are the products and services that you want? And how do we bundle them? The second vertical might be a question that we also discussed, which is under what terms and conditions do we open specific products and services? And when we talk about access models, what does that access actually look like? And then the rubber meets the road, ladies and gentlemen, with that third column, how do we strike the right balance between those critical ingredients? Let's go to the next slide. Here on this slide as well as the next slide, so let's stay on this one for a minute, please. We see that in those two vertical columns, we see in dark gray the majority of services, products and services that were of interest to CC members. And just for those of you who are having a problem reading the screen, we see at the very top 100% of members of the CC wanted access to addresses, contact lists and documents. And then that goes all the way down to 6% that we're looking for services related to cryptocurrency exchange between members of the postal network. And then there's all sorts of shades in between. Now that's the CC, but if we look at the wider postal sector, we see that items that are further down the list of interest to the CC tend to be of more interest to members from the wider postal sector. So let's flip to the next slide. Taking the information that's presented in the previous slide and putting them into three horizontal bars, we see that top line that with high demand line. We see the items that are of most interest to members of the consultative committee as well as those in the wider postal sector that are not perhaps members of the CC or maybe they're members of the CC. And we also see that within the CC there's associations and the association position might not capture particular views of individual members. So okay, that's fine.  Now I'd like you just to pay attention a little bit to what some of those specific products and services are in the top line and we can return to them when we have our discussion. So with that I'm going to turn the floor over to Nidmin. She can walk us through four more slides and then as they say, ladies and gentlemen, start your engines. Let's get going on some more robust discussion. Nidmin, please. Thank you Raj. And for the sixth time we need all of us to be brief but I cannot prevent myself from saying thank you to Peter and Louise for the very hard task they have and also the international bureau support as they are truly our heroes. Following up with Raj's slide on demand you can see here again CCN Gray and wider postal sector players on the blue. You can see there is an agreement about improved interconnectivity and better customer experience also ability to shape the global postal policy agenda. Yet we find no interest from the CC on access to technical assistance no interest from the CC on ability to shape regulatory and policy decisions while we can see there is an interest on the side from wider postal players. So from demand again this analysis can lead us. Next slide please. To many questions, short products and services be packaged in accordance with demand and expected benefits so there have been talk about prioritization of the provisional list what to start with not so we this might can be a start point for this and what combination of product and service can better promote and achieve interconnection and inter-operability between DOs and wider postal sector players. And please do not look at this analysis and these questions away from what Keith and Catherine has provided this morning from practical examples on models and business models can be explored between the DOs and wider postal sectors. Next slide please. And we move to the third one which terms and conditions. Under which terms and conditions UPU product and service could be made accessible to wider postal sector players. As you have heard this morning Keith told us they are not interested in remuneration but market rates so these are the points of terms and conditions and we explore together about opening them. So it's just not be opened as they are opened among DOs there might be amendments to the model itself. Next please. And this lead us to win-win situation which is mentioned by our dear friend Finchen Zhu and also William just didn't mention it clearly but he said about sit-in-the-palance between the private operators and the DOs. These are the main points that we have it and while doing the win-win situation protecting universal service obligations defining level playing field principle and repricity of interconnection. These are the main topics and Raj now we can open the floor for discussions for questions and if you want to get back to the first morning session and to address questions to Keith and Catherine, Finchen Zhu and William please the floor is open. Nermin, I have... we have one gentleman who wanted to take the floor this morning we had a lady that wanted to take the floor as well. Oh me, yes. And I also wanted to lead off if you don't mind I want to lead off with the panelists. No but please let's give the floor... the panelist? We can start with the floor then. So Santosh, let me come back to you but if we can go to the gentleman from Tanzania and then come to Santosh and then we'll go that way. And if you can please just when you take the floor since we don't have placards if you can just say your name and the organization you're representing or the country you're representing that would be appreciated. Thank you Mr. Moderator ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. My name is Harouni Lemanya manager of Postal Services from the Postal Regulator in Tanzania. Since morning I've been listening carefully and interesting on the presentations and discussions. Mr. Moderator, much as we'd like to see that UPU accommodate wider postal sector players there are key issues according to my experience to be considered especially in developing countries like mine and African continent. We are in different stages of regulatory reform not complete in some countries while the reform agenda has been there for quite a long time. In some countries we have seen very difficult to allow competition into traditional monopoly of the post markets and returning the universal service at the same time. Having said that Mr. Chairman we think that we need to find a way that we are going to plan our stages or in stages to ensure that everybody would jump into that boat without any problem with clear understanding of what they are doing be it a stake order, a government, ministry or a regulator or the operator especially the DOs. Mr. Moderator, I like the question you posed when you started Mr. Raj. What is that we are doing well that will attract other players and that was a very important question all of us to consider and I would like to pick only one quickly only one product that is postcode and addressing systems. In Tanzania we have well organized and function national addressing system and that has come because of bribery of our president Hayek Serence Samia Suluhasan who pronounced it as a government priority project. After this one of support by the president many companies realize the importance of addressing and postcode and we are now receiving a lot of inquiries people and companies wanting to use the postcode and addressing in their business. Now we have arguments among ourselves whether we sell this address and postcode files to other stakeholders or we give it for free and if we are selling under which terms and conditions and I wanted to learn from the presenters especially from Canada, Italy, USA, Australia in the high table how do you handle this or how do you think we should handle this sharing the national addressing and postcode data files that have been created or rather we have worked very hard investing heavily on the system and now the new players who may not have paid a penny wanting to get it from us. I thank you. Thank you very much Tanzania. Now we can take these question by question I think that if we are all brief we can move quite quickly and go question by question. Is that okay with everybody? So we don't have a long list of questions. So to your question I will make a quick comment when Walter talked earlier about academics being interested in the UPU and products and services we see that there are various institutions dealing in specialization with geomatics and geodesy that can provide extremely granular services with regards to geolocation. We see that there's also maybe there's companies out there that we can learn from such as What3Words that's using a completely different methodology for addressing direction location services. We see integration with private companies and even items like I just bought this. My kids told me to get it. It's an eye watch and I've got positioning on this. I can literally show my location anywhere I am in the world but where that matters to us is in dynamic redirection of our products when we go out for delivery. We talk about postal code updates, routing and root optimization. We talk about even parcel lockers and locations. So there's all sorts of different areas where we can cross pollinate something as simple and seemingly benign as addressing postal and addressing solutions. But let me turn the floor over to anyone that wants to address either on the panel or even from the floor knowing that we have subject matter experts. Tunisia, please. If you're speaking directly to the... Okay, perfect. It's regarding the same topic. Honestly, he put... Our dearest delegate put his finger on really the place which hurts. Why? Because we know as government that there are many companies, private companies that are developing solutions on addressing. And I know many countries who are really successful, who have successful models using these companies' models for e-commerce, for example. So here, my intervention will be in form of a question. To whom is this data, addressing data, is owned? Is it owned by governments or the designated operator or UPU? I'm asking just to help people to brainstorm regarding this. Does this raise any issue related to privacy and data protection and so on? Why private companies really need these solutions if they already developed their own and normally it should be really successful solutions. And I witnessed many successful solutions like this. I'll be brief and let the others think about it. Yeah, Mona, you've touched on a very sensitive issue, right? Because this is part of BASKET 3. It's part of some of those more controversial proposals. Does anyone else have a comment regarding Tanzania's question? And thank you, Tunisia. Kate? Yeah, okay. Okay. This was one of the... I referred to addressing solutions in my discussion and it is one that I really agree that there are the privacy issues and there are ways... Each country has their own privacy issues, of course, too. And I think in the United States we have tight controls over who can access the address database and you have to be certified and you have to pay a fee and all of those things. But I think where the value is is that if there is a central repository on the ground, but the point is to have the correct address so that the package reaches its destination, right? And you're not dealing with returns and you're not dealing with a bad customer experience. And if I could put my member on the spot, Michael Pakula, we have talked a little bit about this and would you mind sharing your experience just with the addressing and why it's important? Thank you, Kate. Can you hear me? Okay. Michael Pakula is my name. I'm from Foxy and we're a U.S. technology company. Addressing is very important from... I'm sorry, the point I want to make is the value of the data. I think that's the question. I'm less concerned in my world about the privacy as in that needs to be resolved before it comes to us. But the question about does that data have value, yes it does. And how it reduces the value for the customer journey it involves everybody in this room is that when a delivery is attempted and it's not being able to be made there are additional costs in the return. There is time and energy expended from the consumer. And in our world we develop everything from the consumer outwards. So we start with the consumer and say what is the journey the consumer wants and then that leads us back to the position of it's important it solves a lot of problems for sellers and yes they will pay for it. I think that's part of the question. Is it the value of the data? Keith, yeah, go ahead. To answer your question mail innovations when I used to run it years ago was cast certified. So to get the USPS discounts we had to have cast certification which was address verification for every address based on the United States Pulse and Service Standards. And so as part of their standards we have a third party to certify our addresses. So yes it's been done for a long time I think it's a lot better. I don't know if cast even exists anymore frankly since it's been a few years. That said in your case if you have a good database if we're delivering through you you use your database and charge us more to develop a package that would be included in the price that you would negotiate with us. If we're only using you in certain parts of your country because you choose to do whatever or we have a separate then if it's a value we would pay for it's this again it's a fair market exchange once we gain you know insights as to each other's needs but if you have something of value that makes sense that saves us money that increases your value that is of value that is of worth and people will pay for it. And to the question from Tanejo who owns it depends on who develops it. Number one to points made it has to follow European GDRP rules it has to follow US privacy rules but once it's developed if it's developed by Tanzia then it stares. Obviously you have to assume you're following your rules so it should be yours and you should charge for it. I would hope you would that's the right thing to do. If it's developed by the UPU use it then charge for it. But they have to develop they have to follow the rules but the countries have their own databases they have their you know the posts have their own databases they have to follow their own privacy rules. I can't explain how they all do that it's beyond me but it's of value and if it's done right I would expect it to be part of the process of what the posts would charge the free market. So knowing that that's a basket three item it's a little more controversial of course you know and it's something that there are a number of legal and regulatory and privacy challenges etc. I get all that. But just since we're having a friendly conversation amongst 150 of our you know closest friends what's it worth to you? I'm just kind of curious have you have you have or even for IMAG then for your members have they have you had that discussion on you know what's it worth to you? I don't know what it's worth but and I'm looking at Peter Chandler maybe he know I mean the NCOA the national change of address I think they had to pay $200,000 a year or something outrageous right okay somebody from remember this anybody but anyway it's expensive so I think folks recognize but if you're saving $15 on a return package you know maybe maybe that's worth it I don't know I don't know the prices but let's have a market let's get a little market test together Tanzania asked the question Kate and and I got to thinking it's kind of like the old guy that lives down the street with a box full of Beatles records you know original prints it's like he's sitting on a gold mine but he doesn't know it yeah you know and sometimes again notwithstanding all of the the serious legal issues that we'd have to deal with I'm just curious if the thought process has even gone there well I don't I think this is what we create a small little nimble working group and we figure out what people might want to pay for something as part of a test I don't know you know it's not my area of expertise for sure I've now probably there we go Michael help me out here okay I can help you out there from an API perspective cents per address that's how it would have to be for a wider market adoption and from a UPS standpoint I know there are market studies being commissioned as we speak to see it there and say what is what is a market charge in each one of your jurisdictions we already dropped you know packages off in all 192 countries either through posts which many of which we do or we do it through third parties that's the market that may include address that may not don't know depends on the geo but that's what at the end of the day the post compared to I think you know what your market rates are within your geo certainly better than I would and if that includes strong ad just verification would be included in that if it would be better than that it would be the competition then it would be an upcharge so again those market rates are determined based on what it costs us right now to deliver a package and I'd rather give frankly the post the the tie goes to the post of my opinion because they're already there doing it so why not but it's going to be competitive and that's just the way the nature of the market is and post will have to compete like everybody else as we do but come on Keith I mean that's you're you're so smart because you know I'm sure it's built into the market rates and I'm sure it's already in there so I don't think so I don't know I'm not that smart but it wouldn't be it wouldn't be your suggestion is that it's intrinsic to rate it depends on the market it depends on what's going on to a market that has no such address verification and it's costing us money with our current vendor and they're not supplying and they're having returns and everything else and they have something that's built into it I'll pay more for it so I don't know if it's intrinsic it depends on what the competition has and how valuable that asset is that they developed okay see interesting we have this discussion on addressing now it's part of our more controversial set of recommendations but does anyone else have any questions any any comments before I turn the floor over to Nermin to take the next round of questions or I guess issue no no no we'll come to you unless it's it's based directly on this it's connected then in that case Nermin I'll turn the floor over to you and you can yeah yeah no no no but you can manage the discussion with Santosh so Santosh please go ahead yeah he's he's kind of linking it but you have something else he's going to do a nice segue from one issue to the next yeah exactly because that my point covers that part as well as the level playing free land address boat so I think based on what I have seen for the last few years working with UPU and several post offices the way they're looking at addresses is still location and that would get into challenges because people move and there are multiple people living in the same location so as far as I remember the last time I saw the addressing system recommendations there was a digital address to be created on top of a physical address so that people our identities can be the key focus in that case identity and address verification happens in one single transaction so that will eliminate a lot of risk there's a difference between point of origin personal of origin and point of interest both are called POI but how do you map it together so that even if five people living in one house they all will have a separate address but same location so I saw that note and of course that's what we do as a business so by the way my name is Santosh Gopal I represent a conservative committee member I have my own company called Ship to My ID I'm also playing a dual role of vice chair with Walter's help so before somebody proceeds too far in the journey of addressing as an infrastructure think about connecting identity along with the address that's just one thought now when it happens the way we approach is all the systems and databases should be owned by the local countries post offices because they are the address creator they have the US agreements where they're supposed obligated to deliver to every location validation of address and identity both should be in our view should be post offices and everybody can subscribe per transaction per membership or depending on whatever countries how their rules are but now how this connects to the second part you did mention the level playing field which is important but what happens if there are some IP rights involved in certain countries so it does become I'm not expecting a solution now because it's not easy but we should also think about how do you do define and protect IP rights the idea is to create a good solution doesn't matter who owns it who created it but IP right should be also part of it and that could be conflict of interest with level playing field so anyone else have any thank you Santosh you also wanted the floor I think or do you want to okay okay thank you Raj so now let's move for a contribution part we have two very dear colleagues Peter and Louise and we need to support them in the future work so can we go to the brief slide please Mr. Han we have a question and we need to answer the previous one about products and this question slide 69 yes so I will address the question to the floor and to our dear guests, panelists based on the analysis that you have seen short product and service be packaged in accordance to demand and expected benefits and what are your views about what is the most required products to be opened and the expected benefits from your point of view and what combinations of products and service can better promote and achieve interconnection and interoperability this morning we have heard from Catherine about the pilot and we have heard from Akith about injecting volume to the Boston network and also from the perspective of William and Finch and so we need to listen from you what are the first product and service we should open and how be packaged so the questions for the panelists and allow me to start first with Catherine if you're ready okay well we had just floated it's actually something of a direct injection service too but it's a commercial version and the thought was to maybe provide a commercial solution to the post with direct injection into last mile delivery which again could be used to be a postal operator that provides that but perhaps coming in to LA and the post would like same day delivery maybe you use FedEx or UPS or DHL and the idea being that you have a platform that's sort of at the heart of it that takes the manifest from the post and provides the transport and provides the finds the best transport and gives express like service and does all of the bells and whistles pieces of it but also do we want to lay over there some UPU services if they are better which maybe are some of the things we just talked about which are addressing or or the track and trace opportunities or the supply chain services perhaps Oscar if you wanted to calculate what your contribution to urban footprint is and again with to just reflect on Oscar for a moment as scope two and scope three emissions you need to start thinking about what your supply chain partners are contributing to the whole process so there's a real opportunity there as well again I wouldn't mind turning it over to a couple of my members if they had any ways to talk about this and enhance it I got Michael and I see Ignacio and I don't know if anybody else out there would like to just share a little bit of thinking around that thank you thanks Kate thanks everyone for your time this afternoon excuse me Michael the CEO of boxing those that know me know that I can talk although I'm sitting amongst all my friends this afternoon but I have prepared something just to keep it on track and respectful of everyone's time just quickly we're an e-commerce logistics management platform where through one API we provide the technology and services required by any entity involved in shipping e-commerce parcels with a major advantage in cross-border shipping the UPU is a tremendous organization with tremendous opportunity in their home markets each designated operator has strong brand recognition a marketers dream that Canon should be leveraged for growth when we consider the competitive landscape commercial opportunity for growth lies in developing commercial cross-border e-commerce demanded shipping services not only are these services in demand from consumers and shippers but these lanes offer great opportunity for designated operators to take new products to market competing with commercial services generating new revenues and of course additional gross margin so we have an alternative thought to the designated operator route and the UPU but the concept is designated operators here is an alternative create new channels new shipping lanes new opportunity and new revenues to date boxy has several designated operators developing these commercial lanes by leveraging our platform to this end boxy would be pleased to work directly with the UPU and designated operators to run a test requiring one designated operator who has one customer and report the findings back to the UPU as required we can facilitate this trial quickly in fact within a few weeks and we are happy to engage and commit our internal resources free of charge in order to remove that hurdle from conducting a trial and in order to review the results as soon as possible in regards to a testing designated operator we can work with any DO that is interested to be part of a trial or indeed to deep dive and develop these lanes right now I guess my broad message is as a platform the message is in terms of opening up boxy is a giver not a taker to the community thank you Michael for this announcement if I may be to you have the floor thank you for this answer and as I'm co-chairing an expert team to be honest with you this sounds a little bit too vague for us we all know that we can grow our markets by working together and so on if I ask you today when you think about the end-to-end process of a parcel or an e-commerce e-commerce package where for you today are the hurdles and the problems why you need the UPU to develop such a thing I mean with direct injection model or direct injection platform lots of operators have this and you're not the only one there's even postal operators who have such platforms when they're trying to optimize themselves so to say it again where are the problems in today's environment and why would you need the UPU why do we need the UPU is that part of the question yes but more important in the end-to-end process because if I gave you my number afterwards we could easily set up a trial in the next couple of weeks but we could do such a trial even without the UPU because a direct injection is not necessarily what I would consider with UPU correct good point you could do it yourself so where we sit is we're a platform and through our one API we give access to consumers globally and over 100 integrations with customs compliance insurance and last mile carriers so everybody can do everything themselves do they have the ability to do that that's a whole different story so rather than me I didn't come here to sell believe it or not but the point is that speaking for itself is that we have two DOs that are working with us I know at least one is in the room so we're under NDA but if they wanted to stand up and talk about that they could but the relevance is it's obviously interesting to them for whatever reason and I think there are hurdles within their own businesses but I think what they're doing is creating express services that will create new revenues for them in markets where the postal solution isn't perceived to be good or isn't perceived to be demanded by their services okay I would like to make comment here that's why we need an enhanced CC so that Michael you can be part of it and you offer a detailed proposal and to understand what are the benefits you can offer and how it works so that's why all of us are convinced that enhanced CC is required so that wider postal players can contribute and develop the business models and offer it to the DOs and the BUC and see how we can proceed so if I may to go to Finch & Zoo to hear your response on this question please I'll show the product and service be packaged in accordance with demand and expected benefits well I think it's about 10 years we have a list of product services too often why don't we open these services again we have a resolution C9 from DOA we have a resolution C10 from Istanbul and also before I think just before the pandemic on one of the last committee of C1 we also had the approval to to engage the main stakeholder of the supply chain which are obviously our first collaborator like Ayata WCO so we have already this product and services they already listed I have to do that you're asking me to care about opening this do you want to attract stakeholders for this product again the question is that we have currently now a provisional list with several packets so there is a question say that should be packaged in demand and expected benefits for example when we talk today the key said we don't need your remuneration system so Catherine said that we can go to the supply chain for this supply chain so it's like this is provided based on the resolution from Istanbul and the progress of the work since Istanbul till now but till this moment we don't have a clear idea on what to be opened now based on good benefits because we have not yet made the analysis as Peter said so if you have an idea on this and if you don't it's fine we can go to William if you guys have we have already the list that at least at UP level was released the products which were interesting for stakeholders and in some cases some stakeholders already participate in the services so it may be there is a need to enlarge the stakeholder using the services and this is what I said this morning I was looking to the consultant committee so why along this time even some product were promoted to be open nothing really concrete happened because these are not the products that stakeholder wants I'm talking about main services provided by DAB like legal services also participation in training program capacity building access to dot post and so on let's be clear on that why we are not developing this product why we are not gearing interest on this product concretely there are few members which have already been engaged but let's see what Shiva with your permission can add to that thank you just to give some context for everyone here as to what basket one is about so as Raj pointed out these are products and services that member states had agreed should be made accessible to wider postal sector players and each of these products and services have to a large extent a number of terms and conditions approved by member states by way of access and there's been a process the focus of the technical review of basket one is really about asking the question as Vincenzo points out we have provided for sort of legal access but there hasn't been real uptake now that could be because of the fact that the product itself isn't meeting the needs of our stakeholders that's one alternative explanation could be we don't sell these things out to the marketplace and no one really knows about them but it's the sort of thing that we actually need to get into and we need our stakeholders to tell us guys you've got this right you've got this wrong and it's a point that Raj also made at the start which is you know we want to hear what we're doing well and what we're not doing good and how do we improve it and so that's really the focus of basket one the packaging issue is sort of it touches basket one to some extent but it's really more about basket two and basket three thank you thank you Siba for the clarification but it's exactly what I said when I said that we have a provisional list in you other than Istanbul packet or basket so for the new list of services but Siba Finchans we have closed no no no I just wanted to because we need to no no no just because I mean you are correct I mean probably the answer is for both you know some are not interested they know others maybe don't know the the system it's already the services maybe it's also our fault we were not really I mean well promoted one of the examples you know we never along this time made it concrete the use of the post and in some somehow not attractive not even for the members so maybe should also work in a way of better also and that is probably this uncertainty is also be read on the fact that when you see the ranking list of services is not quite you know balanced like say okay you know there is some doubt for the second thank you Finchans Egypt Hatham would like to take the floor but first go to Walter because he asked before you and then get back to you Mr. Walter you have the floor thank you very much a very direct answer why did nobody pick up Oscar train post supply chain management solutions on the scale we actually expected when we started our marketing for the CC we made that knowledge available through the wider postal sector players and I was amazed most of those guys had no idea that these products are actually open and and then the next stage was so how can we engage and that helped us to promote the consultant of committee and those guys were actually quite substantial postal related entities so world class leaders in producing I don't know postal systems and again opening up is one thing but they also need additional qualifications for that now to give an example there was we were talking to two or three airlines they are all interested in the supply chain management products but what they need for the governments is stamp of approval that they are compliant and certified according to UP rules do we have that well we took the initial steps to do that it's not done so the products are actually fantastic we can offer we didn't promote them and they stopped before they were actually ready for market approach thank you okay thank you Mr Walter happy to have the floor thank you Namin thank you Namin I think we are in a little confusing situation the consultant of committee as well as other stakeholders do not have a clearly distributed workload for example some deal with the dressing others deal with other dimensions and parts some take responsibility for the organizational aspects I don't think the situation is so clear it's a bit confusing to determine where the interests lie we have many members in the consultative committee but we don't have a full view of the background of that composition of the committee whether these companies working on IT solutions for example and so I think we do need to know who is doing what, who is responsible for what, we need to know what the services that we can offer are thank you Hatem I believe Epstein words can respond to this about the the spellet of the CC response as it has been made on the ministry if this can be provided later on on the survey analysis if it possible to give us clarity about the responses no definitely we can look at that and we already have I think some detailed things attached to our report but if it's not there then we can add it and provide that later so I demand myself and you about the timing and I give the floor to William and then Keith to respond to the question again short products and service be packaged in accordance with demand and expected benefits. William you have the floor thanks Dermene and my remarks I'll pick up on what Walter was saying and what we've been talking about in terms of what products and services are valuable and why we might not have seen particular products and services taking off I think it's important to remember that our products and services suite are designed to fulfill a specific function and that specific function is to connect to designated operators and I think it's not surprising that if we look saying let's open up a product and service a particular product and service that our wider sector are going well we're not a designated operator we don't fit within that box why is that product useful for us and I think a really good example of that if we want to make our products and services more valuable is we need to think at that more strategic level about what those products and services are doing so when we talk about should we package them up I think the answer is yes I think we should package them up into different types of products that do different types of things I think that makes it more accessible easier to understand but at the same time we need to understand why our products and services work the way they are and question whether those products and services are fit for purpose and I can see people nodding off so I'll use the word IMPC code which I'm sure will wake everyone up right up including the people back in Australia listening in but I want to just pick up on that because IMPC codes are very sensitive and I don't want to get into that debate but I've put it out there that IMPC why we have IMPC codes is because member countries have agreed to a particular way of designated operators exchanging things with each other and we have agreed that for a particular remuneration and a particular price and we have following my diagram if we have agreed to that particular price why have we agreed to that particular price and the answer is to support social development so in order to understand whether IMPC codes are valuable for the wider sector we as governments need to understand how can we support that social development do we need to unpack that from our remuneration structure do we need to unpack our remuneration structure for a moment IMPC code and then we can have a conversation with the wider sector around that code without the baggage of all the other components and I think that's the same for a number of the products and services that are on this slide but they are themselves interlinked and in order to sell and in order to engage with the wider sector on particular products we need to understand how we can unpick those products from our system and what our plan is for that system going forward to be able to show what that value is for wider sector players going in thanks Mimi thanks William for this clear answer very insightful, very helpful indeed thank you Frans, ask it for the floor and then Siva, Frans you have the floor Elizabeth thank you for giving me the floor I'm going to change topic a little since this morning we haven't heard much about her very important activity recognising the role of posts in terms of financial inclusion this is a topic that was touched upon last week in particular during the POC meetings many observations were made first of all we found that the role of posts has been recognised to ensure financial inclusion that furthermore postal financial services represent some 20% of postal revenues however financial transactions and postal financial services represented only 1% of global financial transactions and that figure is falling so that was a real problem identified furthermore a study has been carried out by Ernst & Young a consultancy who have studied this and have put forward 12 recommendations working on the basis of several different scenarios in the results of that study it was clear that the status quo is not viable yet the recommendations that were most beneficial for the future looked at work through partnerships to ensure financial services which are adapted to current needs and which can meet the need for financial inclusion a task force was established to work on this topic which should come back to the extraordinary congress with proposals the situation has been recognised as urgent and so I did want to flag up that problem everyone needs to mobilise of course around that specific task force but also through work which will be undertaken in the expert team of the CA committees or other work under the CA as well thank you thank you so much Elizabeth good point you are absolutely right financial service is one of the products that seen by majority of member countries is a very good prospects for opening and I believe because most of our panellists are as it was logistics not financial but this can be considered next time and to bring from the financial or the finance sector so Siva you have raised the flag I'm not sure if you want because we have China online with us we have the floor thank you I mean I just wanted to share an anecdote well it's not an anecdote but it actually happened so a few weeks ago Peter was in Ultima's room and we were talking about what are we going to do in terms of progressing the work of the expert team and I think the three of us were pretty much in tears because we weren't quite sure how to progress things and quite frankly we've had a really good discussion a good dialogue but we're not still getting direction we're not getting direction and I'm putting this out as a challenge to you the moderators the panellists and people in the audience how do we fix this in a way that allows us to bring something that's useful to Congress because frankly there's no point calling ministers from 192 member states to come together we're just going to go back and say to them we're doing more studies right and our citizens expecting us to deliver something as well so I really like all the discussions but I'm sure Peter, myself and Ultima are going to be crying after this as well actually this is what I'm trying to do here I noted down what Catherine said she's currently did it, she said addressing Oscar so I'm trying to provide the list here and I want to make a point on my notebook I actually have a line here where I was actually whispering to Nermin can you give me the floor after Keith and who else we will after China and Keith after China and Keith but my comment was exactly along those lines which is I'm lost and this has been a great dialogue but what's the outcome and I was going to ask Peter to say have you heard anything that actually drives the agenda forward so Nermin I'll give it back to you we're going till 6 I believe our colleague from Saudi Arabia you want the floor yes please let me give China first and get back to you I'm afraid I'm going to make it even more diverse so I'll keep it at this for you so I'm trying I'm writing them down China online you have the floor okay thank you thank you Nermin for giving me the floor we'd like to take this opportunity to share our concerns and views first we think that nobody will deny the principle that any policy for the opening up of the postal products and services must be discussed on the premise of not affecting the normal healthy and sustainable development of postal channel business within the business scope of designated operators and objective of action should be a win-win scenario and stronger global postal network as all we understand remuneration system is not only a set of rates but overall postal channel business system corresponding to all kinds of postal products including letter post, parcel post and EMS and MPC is not just a set of codes but the overall operational basis for postal items exchanged by all designated operators in the global postal network they are derived from the experience and achievements accumulated over the years by all designated operators of UPU members since the establishment of UPU in 1874 this can also be fully demonstrated that remuneration system and MPC are completely different and irrelevant with the commercial channel business and operational model of the wider sector player currently conduct therefore the opening up of these two core areas of UPU will obviously shake the foundations of the global postal network and from another perspective means that the wider sector players can enjoy the same terms as the existing designated operators can enjoy and enjoy the full and complete access to the market by extending from the current commercial channel business to all postal channel services in view of this in order to maintain the stability and business order of the global postal network within that we should avoid the chaos and disorder of postal services caused by excessive and improper opening up of the postal products and services in this regard we believe that both the remuneration system and MPC codes which are the cores of the UPU and the global postal network should not be included in the list of the UPU products and services to be opened up to wider sector players in addition to ensure the potential opening up of other postal products and services fulfilled above mentioned principle and in-depth market and impact analysis should be carried out to assess the specific influence of the opening up process for both the designated operators and the wider sector players Second, what we have been trying to find out and what is very important is the opening up of UPU products and services should be on the reciprocal basis so we are wondering what tangible, valuable contributions and unique resources the wider sector players can and prepare to bring to UPU and to the designated operators as we can see the results of the questionnaire show that the benefits of the opening up to wider sector players are still very general and limited it just basically and mainly mentions that it can increase postal volumes through UPU as we all know the market is changing and customer demand is adjusting constantly and increase of business volume especially the increase of postal business volume is composed of manufacturers on the one hand the opening up of so many key UPU products and services to the wider sector players is not necessarily associated with an increase in postal business volumes and the expected benefits is mainly the growth of postal channel business volume then the sensible and feasible way is that the wider sector players can cooperate as the customer of the designated postal operators on the other hand we all know that every coin has two sides the results of the questionnaire and the technical review did not mention the policy of the market did not mention the possible negative impact and potential new problems that opening up of the core UPU products and services for example the remuneration system and MTC might bring to the market and the existing business which we think should not be ignored and should be analyzed and considered thank you Narmine for giving me the floor to Helen for sharing with us your views on this important topic in a clear way and now allow me to reach the keys well first to answer to respond to questions and please help our colleagues Luis and Peter and Tamer and Siva if you have any lists of products to be opened and whatever you want to say I could go on for days first of all I just want to give you a package and pay for you to deliver it you can call it an IMPC code if you want to you can call it a label that has a UPU emblem on it you can call it a label that has a foreign postal emblem and a UPS label on it I don't really care I just want to say do you want a package and I'll pay you a market rate to deliver it now there's a lot of things to save this point how do you get into this thing the challenge is and it is a challenge as we launched this year post program so we were on the phone for dozens of hours with IT figuring out all those codes and everything else it is such a pain and I am not good at it I can tell you that right now but that has to happen and so preparation has to happen and then the UPS wants to deliver a package we already delivered 220 countries and territories right now so we already have someone right next to you or some of the people in this room we're paying right now to deliver a package that is happening so for me to say let's do a test which we need to do by the way let's we have to integrate well I have already someone there do I need to get someone new I don't know because we UPS has brown country where we have infrastructure we have paid for we have infrastructure where we have companies that have our logos and we have in most countries couriers that deliver it the compete against the posts those couriers will turn over so when they start to turn over do you want to be on the list to take that volume that's how something like this is probably going to evolve you have to do the IT you have to do the processes and you have to whiteboard it and that's I find there's anything I can say see what it has to be done right now is clarify the information misinformation good information don't know but as soon as you whiteboard it then a million more questions come up for instance if I want to go from country A to country B and they want me to do it does it make sense to use their transportation because it can't build the ULD right now so we can use existing transportation infrastructure I'm not worried about that I don't think any customer authority is going to let us circumvent the law by calling our package a postal package if that happens then I would be surprised if that happens and so that has to be those that's for me the next step that has to happen everywhere because a lot of those other products and services then start to clamp on to that whiteboard the process of integration the services that are ancillary that come on the programs for address cleansing and address hygiene all those start to come on within those pricing networks the whiteboard is key and then the test is the key and I know I heard some concerns about what if it goes wrong things could be long-term then you stop you see I don't want any more UPS packages I don't want to get paid market rates anymore and I'd rather sit there and have you pay my competitor okay decision made done now I will pose a question to this group and I'm going to be a little bit tougher on this one because I'm getting a dagger out of myself it's been said several times and people are concerned cherry picking cherry picking people don't want to say it I'm saying it we're going to cherry pick you we are chasing high yield products like everybody else is like everybody this room is like biggest big biggest integrators in this world are that we're doing that and I'd like to think we're doing it okay but at the same time we have our our frailties as well but the trends right now last time the UPU had meetings in May I heard for three hours how integrators and express companies were taking volume from the people in this room so I did some basic research it's on the internet UPS group 10% in 2019 and 7.9% in 2020 there you go look it up on our financial savings international volume cross border not bad not bad FedEx a little bit different but nothing better than that IPC it grew 100% in 2019 it grew almost 100% in 2020 now who belongs to IPC I'm just calling like it is in this room now there's a term I love earlier Raj industry capture dominant players taking control of others in the room to obtain their agenda everybody has it and I venture to guess that some people in this room have the same thought some of those people maybe IPC members the presentation given yesterday on the flows of postal goods was a terrific presentation but I don't think it captured the flows of some of those largest companies that have some city areas right now are sending volume through the ethos through the organizations that needs to be understood so this organization understands what's happening you challenged me for those numbers they're public information I'll share them with you I'll send you the email that pulls off our financial savings it says we got this much volume into it not the amount of volume that this room has lost and so you need to look into that that is serious that's one thing on the cherry picking on the other thing though I want to do an answer because UPS we are going to go after the best volume as so many other competitors are at the same time two days ago we had our earnings release and our CEO got up there and said we now have technology available to where we are able to take an item as soon as it gets put into a cart and as soon as it sold from one merchant but a few more later on in multiple longer term platforms downstream immediately and as soon as that pairings made adjust the pricing because now you have a multi-piece delivery going to one residence real-time price dynamic pricing we already deployed that right now we also have RFID labels and a hundred facilities to where as soon as it gets put on we don't have to scan it anymore we know that packages every minute of the transportation that allows us to adjust our flows everything else this stuff is coming that's a cherry pick this room won't even see those packages unless we can work together because it's going to get picked out by IT systems way in advance and right now it frustrates me because I see so many talented men and women in this room but we're so busy trying to fight against you know the customs and security rules and all that stuff that we've been doing since the 80s you need to go forward in progress you need to get new technology you need to get what some of the Gates members have that's what's going to sit there and propel this room forward or you're going to be cherry picked to death it'll be some from within this room and you know who I'm talking about and some without so again I think it's a great opportunity I think this room has a lot to do but whiteboarding it's a first step I'm sorry I took too long all good Keith listen this is Keith thank you so much and Raj please you take it thank you Nermeen and thank you Keith listen no you're here to you're here to share your views your name has been used in ill vein I'm sure more than a couple of times just kidding we wanted to hear from you we wanted to hear from Keith we wanted to hear from others we have a time management issue as well because technically this session is done in 60 seconds but I think we're going to have to go just a couple of more minutes because we have the deputy director general here and we have the United States seeking the floor and I'd like to make a quick comment as well we have 10 minutes translators are we okay with 10 minutes no problem we have till 6.30 10 minutes and then we go to the deputy director general okay but we'll put you at the end because you know okay unless you want to arm wrestle me for you so just to the point that the IB had made and this is where again this is the difficult part of being on the rostrum right we have an extraordinary congress and we had several hours dedicated to trying to understand where and how we are going to proceed even if we had modest goals basket one and those first three let's take it as an example those first three dot post, train post and oscar let's just talk about those peter and louise as the expert team chairs who've been running that process building that 109 page document and stewarding the process of looking at the 22 products and services did you get anything crunchy or granular that you can take back on the side of a good dialogue a good general dialogue do you have now a crystal clear sense on how we are to proceed yeah I can see it from your face you only have to take that please peter honestly no but I'm still grateful for the puts I got because what the both of you said changed my perspective both of you said something regarding a directing injection platform and I'm also grateful for the word what we are doing here is we start from a fixed range of products and services and try to market every single one on an individual basis I think what we should do is also whiteboard ideas product ideas and then kind of pick and pack these products and services into this new product which you envisage before what I would have hoped for was based on this example with the direct injection platform what kind of products and services of those up there would you already see into this specific product which you propose and I suspect part of the complexity here peter I mean recognizing that Austria just ranked at the very top of the global list for savvy and technical postal operators performing at a very high level but the the other member countries that are here and they're listening to the dialogue and kind of figure out how do I impute intelligently into this discussion where is the opportunities for our partners I don't think they're there yet so we have no