[Dx-qsl] IRC's revisited

Tue Jul 11 21:02:10 EDT 2006

M5AAV QSPed from UPU:
>It is, at least in my opinion, starting to become clearer regarding
>'yellow' IRC's.
>Today I received the following.
>>***********************
>>Dear Mr. Ridgeway:
>>You should understand that currently the IRCs issued before 2002 are
>exchangeable indefinitely according to the current UPU rules. However,
>this kind of IRC cannot anymore exchangeable, in term of finances,
>between the postal administrations since 30 June 2006. Therefore, it
>means that some of them do not want anymore accept this coupon for
>exchange.
>>The exchange of IRC (after the customer's exchange) between the postal
>administrations is worked through a bilateral agreement and if this text
>does not exist, the postal administrations lose money.
>>At the same time, we wonder why some people, 4 years later, have still
>so many old coupons to exchange.
>>Regards
>>Claude Voirol
>IRC and Philately Programme Assistant

Yes, as I think I said before it is the "back office" handling that
has changed. A new system was introduced & the old one
phased out. The old one places the onus on PAs to settle
these older IRCs amongst themselves. PAs who did not set
up something now say they are no good, pointing to UPU
saying the system is no longer there.
However, all PAs are obliged as UPU members to honor IRCs.
I guess countries that sign up to things like UPU are saying
something about themselves when they renege on obligations
of membership.
Every UPU member must accept these IRCs, full stop. That
its PA is privatized or is a trading fund or is still part of the
state does not change this.
Why we still have old IRCs is quite simple - they have
indefinite validity. It is naive to assume that IRCs are always
purchased by the sender before being sent to the recipient
for exchange.
An IRC is what it is. We collectively have an expectation
that they will be handled per Art 22. Until the UPU
specifically declares these IRCs to be useless, they are
perfectly valid. It is as simple as that. Anything else is
wrong & accepting this undermines the utility of the IRC to
us all.
Cheers again for the QSP, Graham.
73, VR2BrettGraham