hange E hange E

XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit4Foundation(Structure&Authority)NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
New Republic
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a

Letthestarssing!Lettheplanetsshout!LettheRepublicbegin! Search

Summit 4 Foundation (Structure & Authority)

Searchthistopic 7postsPage1of1

Summit 4 Foundation (Structure & Authority)

byGandXitwaMonMay08,20178:18pm
P
Whether we like to admit it or not, what we are trying to rebirth is a form of government, though it might be better
considered an Governing Organization. Bear in mind that Government is defined as:

GandXitwa
RDCHighAmbassador

government vr(n)mnt/
noun
1. Posts:973
Joined:ThuMar10,20165:41am
the governing body of a nation, state, or community. Contact:
C

With that said, before we can really put the meat to the grill, we have to determine the structure and the roles in
which will serve as the foundation of anything moving forward. We have to, if for just the sake of debate, consider
the New Galactic Alliance (NGA), a.k.a. GA2.0 as a form of central government and as such have three choices of
structure to chose from: Confederation, Federal, or Unitary.

Red = Central Governement / NGA Blue = Factions / MemberStates

Pro's:
Individual MemberStates retain all of their sovereignty

Con's:
Very weak or no authority over MemberStates

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7599 1/6
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit4Foundation(Structure&Authority)NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a

Red = Central Governement / NGA Blue = Factions / MemberStates

Pro's:
NGA, in some areas, has more authority to conduct policy on behalf all all MemberStates.

Con's:
MemberStates sign away some of their sovereignty

Red = Central Governement / NGA

Note:
Nobody wants this one as we all would loose our very identities... so scratch this!

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7599 2/6
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit4Foundation(Structure&Authority)NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
Consideration
.c
& Input

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a
Looking at the three models shown above, I would be willing to wager that between all of us here, we can see the
benefits of both a confederacy and federal form of organizational structure. However, in order to have this
conversation there is at least one fundamental questions each sovereign MemberState will has to answer:

Is your faction willing to sign away some of its sovereignty to a central organization? Why or why not?

If you or your faction are unwilling to cede some of your sovereignty, what areas and what level of cooperation do
you see existing in a new Galactic Alliance?

T
o
Re: Summit 4 Foundation (Structure & Authority)
byCrueyaVandronTueMay09,20172:50am
P

Gand Xitwa wrote:

Is your faction willing to sign away some of its sovereignty to a central organization? Why or why not?[/color]

CrueyaVandron
If you or your faction are unwilling to cede some of your sovereignty, what areas and what level of cooperation
do you see existing in a new Galactic Alliance? Posts:407
Joined:TueDec22,20157:54pm
Contact:
C

Gand,

I'm going to try and be as open and honest as I can here. Because as Natalis Oro mentioned in another thread, we are
not going to get anywhere unless we start talking plainly and directly.

The Resistance has two possible answers to this question.

#1: If the GA2.0 is going to be NRcentric, then The Resistance would be willing to cede some sovereignty and would
favor a federation model.

#2: If the GA2.0 is not going to be NRcentric, then The Resistance is not willing to cede some sovereignty and would
favor a confederation model.

The reason for the two possible answers from The Resistance is similarly twofold:

1. We believe that the GA2.0 needs to be NRcentric in order to be most effective and efficient (furthermore with
NR's multilayered government structure with elections and the checks an balances of the AC/Senate, we highly
doubt the NR's leadership would abuse its authority and power over the GA in an NRcentric GA2.0.)

2. We are very concerned about some of the significant overreaches we witnessed in GA1.0, and we are not willing
to see them occur again. Specifically, the threats from the GA's Secretary General at the time to exclude NR from
future GA R&D efforts because of a tech sharing dispute, as well as how the whole Rift Alliance situation was
handled. I do not believe either of these two actions were in the best interests of GA, NR, or TR.

As nice as the idea of a rotating chairman sounds, the process lent itself to the lack of a single coordination
mission/direction for the GA, and the elections themselves became more of a pissing content than anything else.
What should have worked in theory, was not as effective in execution. While I understand the theory and philosophy
of having the representative form of government present in GA1.0 via election, it was not a practical solution. I am
all for supporting the NR/GA's ideals of freedom and representative democracy whenever possible, however we must
be realistic about the game mechanics and the actually effectiveness of any system put in place.

In short:
1.) The Resistance first and foremost favors federation model with a NRcentric GA2.0 with an NR appointee to lead
the GA with the assistance of some sort of advisory body comprise of representatives from member factions. In this
instance TR is willing to cede some sovereignty. The Resistance favors the new GA2.0 communication to take place
on the NR forums, to be moderated by NR. The Resistance favors the voluntary cooperation model where the NR
presents a mission/objective and those who volunteer to participate are given access to compartmentalized sub
forums for the purpose. The Resistance favors a few broadaccess subforums with access to all GA2.0 members for
the purpose of collaboration and exchange in trade, FI/City designs, intel.

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7599 3/6
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit4Foundation(Structure&Authority)NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
2.) If for whatever reason, GA2.0 will not be NRcentric and not led by a member of NR, The Resistance favors a
N

N
Y

Y
U

U
B

B
confederacy model. In this instance TR is willing to cede little to no sovereignty, because of significant and
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
noteworthy concerns well documented in GA1.0. The Resistance favors the new GA2.0 communication to take place
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re tr re
.

.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a
on the NR forums, to be moderated by NR. The Resistance favors the voluntary cooperation model some sort of
advisory body comprise of representatives from member factions presents a mission/objective and those who
volunteer to participate are given access to compartmentalized subforums for the purpose. The Resistance favors a
few broadaccess subforums with access to all GA2.0 members for the purpose of collaboration and exchange in
trade, FI/City designs, intel.

Image
T
o
Re: Summit 4 Foundation (Structure & Authority)
byCrueyaVandronTueMay09,20173:14am
P
IU documents attached for references.

ATTACHMENTS
CrueyaVandron
IUCharterv0.6.pdf
Posts:407
(476.14KiB)Downloaded6times
Joined:TueDec22,20157:54pm
Contact:
DGE003.pdf
C
(69.12KiB)Downloaded4times

EngagementStrategyv1.pdf
(181.21KiB)Downloaded4times

Image
T
o
Re: Summit 4 Foundation (Structure & Authority)
byCrueyaVandronTueMay09,20173:14am
P
IU documents attached for reference.

ATTACHMENTS
CrueyaVandron
IUTechAgreementv1.0.doc
Posts:407
(129.5KiB)Downloaded8times Joined:TueDec22,20157:54pm
Contact:
TierProgressionRequirements.pdf
C
(92.43KiB)Downloaded4times

Image
T
o
Re: Summit 4 Foundation (Structure & Authority)
byNatalisOroWedMay10,201712:41am
P
I haven't read your documents yet V, so forgive me if I do not touch on them here. I wanted to address Gands post
first.

While the models are fantastic for show and tell purposes and explanations, I would caution on using the term NatalisOro
government in the GA 2.0. Even if you only meant to simulate a model, the choice of making an alliance a MinisterofState

government bears with it some connotations we cannot escape (real world example is Trump. All have a strong
reaction to that name, one way or another). Government has the connotation 'ruling party' which immediately
downplays sovereignty to a great many. Posts:1552
Joined:FriJan08,201611:30pm
Contact:
And Alliance is palatable because it does not loose the sense of sovereignty. C

Please remember that RS, and Ark especially are part of this because they want to be. Both leaders were NR citizens
long ago and they chose to leave for their own valid reasons. I would wager, the same reasons TR and Invid are not
desirous of being NR PSAs.

If the leaders are to agree the NR takes a lead role, that is fine... how that is formulated is incredibly important to
all. And I think we best establish, first, what this Alliance is for and what it encompasses, as well as what it does not

Now, please forgive me V if your notes suggest something along those lines XD

Autviaminveniamautfaciam
T
o
Re: Summit 4 Foundation (Structure & Authority)
byOrionChranThuMay11,201712:02am
P
Looking over the documents, some of the basics appear to be similar to how the GA 1.0 was setup/functioning a few
years back in terms of the structure.

The two group Union Council using the Grand and Executive is similar to what I suggested in terms of having a top OrionChran
tier like the current LC and a sub level with the various sub level leaders like NAT leaders, Military HC and similar ChiefofState

leaders from the other participating factions.

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7599 4/6
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit4Foundation(Structure&Authority)NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
Posts:3367
N

N
Per my suggestion, the sub tier leaders would not really be voting or making many if any actual decisions as it's more
Y

Y
U

U
Joined:FriDec18,20154:00am
B

B
so to help discuss and plan the different areas like defense, economic, intel, diplomatic topics.
to

to
Contact:
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr re t ra e
ar
.

.
ac
k e r- s o ft w a cke
Per Section 4: Imperial Union Task Force in the IU Charter, they created a group force to which the Executive r- s o ft w

members contribute resources which could be also be credits, personnel, materiel and intelligence. Their 2nd tier,
Parliamentary Members, may volunteer various assets like credits and intel. These can also be declined. In terms of a
military force we did try to work out something similar per assets and manpower which really did not go far.

I'm curious as to how well this is working out for the IU. I have not really heard of any major issues, so it seems the
general system is working for them to leads to more questions as to why the GA 1.0 was not working. Strict
enforcement over the various policies I could see as a means for them not having some of the issues we have faced.
As well it could have to be the alignment.

Their tech policy seems rather interesting that it looks like a tier based shop. I don't know how adequate the system
is in terms of a break down per need and size though.

Natalis Oro wrote:

If the leaders are to agree the NR takes a lead role, that is fine... how that is formulated is incredibly important
to all. And I think we best establish, first, what this Alliance is for and what it encompasses, as well as what it
does not

I do agree with Nat, we probably need to establish what the Alliance is to be. Maybe look more into the problems of
GA 1.0 mixed with goals and possible future issues to determine the direction.

I think one of the biggest concerns I have with a NRcentric approach is the effects the decisions, policies, and
actions the NR takes effecting the other members. We for the most part saw the actions and intentions Jasper had
for the NR, which such a leader even with the checks and balances could have been very damaging to not only the NR
but to allies as well. The wrong Senate could stalemate needed actions.

I'm personally still up in the air as to which direction would be best. Maybe reviewing some of the things I mentioned
like the past problems and goals we can arrive at a clearer picture.

T
o
Re: Summit 4 Foundation (Structure & Authority)
byDraithShaduxThuMay11,20176:49am
P
Out of the three models presented, the confederation model I feel is what we are leaning towards. Granted each
member retains all sovereign control in their individual group and theirs no control from the GA 2.0 body, our
discussions here have us all agreeing that we collaborate with one another and our efforts be measured by how we
work with one another and contribute. DraithShadux

Posts:56
I'm not totally opposed though to the federal model as things such as trade bans towards our common enemies is Joined:SatMar05,20165:06am
something I wouldn't hesitate to agree on. I do think advisories give us a more flexible approach on how we as a Contact:
C
group handle things, compared to mandates. That's not to say mandates are a bad thing but from what I've gathered
from our talks thus far is we are all wanting to shape the GA 2.0 different than version 1.0 and we all agree that
collaboration between all our groups is essential in order for us all to grow and to succeed in this endeavor.

It all really boils down to each topic we cover in our own charter. Until we cover each topic and get a general
consensus on how each member feels towards a specific topic, I think we can then all agree on which form of
government type we should use for GA 2.0.

T
o
Displaypostsfromprevious: Allposts Sortby Posttime Ascending Go

7postsPage1of1

ReturntoGalacticAlliance

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7599 5/6
 hange E hange E
XC di XC di
F- F-
5/30/2017
t
Summit4Foundation(Structure&Authority)NewRepublic t
PD

PD
or

or
!

!
W

W
O

O
N

N
Y

Y
U
Jump to

U
B

B
to

to
ww

ww
om

om
k

k
lic

lic
C

C
.c

.c
w

w
tr t
Boardindex
re Theteam Members Deleteallboardcookies AlltimesareUTC+02:00
ra
ar
e
.

.
ac
k e r- s o ft w a ck e r- s o ft w

PoweredbyphpBBForumSoftwarephpBBLimited

http://forum.newrepublic.net/viewtopic.php?f=1449&t=7599 6/6