[DRAFT] Founding the G20

[Unibot III]

The following is a "proof of concept" to introduce the G20 in NS.

I thought I’d start the ball rolling and toss out a first draft of a resolution that would create reoccurring G9 and G20 summits. If someone shows interest in contributing to the resolution draft, I’ll be happy to hand over permission to use any text below. They can cannibalize it in whatever way they like. This thread is about fleshing out the idea and the concept.

————————————————

The Group of Twenty (G20)
Category: Declaration | Authored by: Coffee mostly

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the need for a series of regular intergovernmental forums to facilitate discussions between world powers on current events and international challenges,

Believing that the international recognition and codification of these forums will help ensure structure, continuity, and adoption,

Cognizant of the importance of giving special voice to smaller regions internationally in recognition of the contributions they make to NationStates and the international community-at-large,

Hereby declares:

Article 1: Membership

1. The Group of Twenty (G20) shall include the twenty regions with the most highly endorsed WA delegates in NationStates on January 1st of the current year.
   
2. In the event of a tie, all qualifying regions will form the G20 for that year.
   
3. The G20 shall also include special membership, with full voting and hosting rights, to the United Regions Alliance (URA) and may elect only by a two-thirds decision to revoke this membership and/or confer this membership to a different region or organization.

Article 2: Summits

1. Diplomatic representatives of all G20 members are invited to attend biannual G20 summits during the first week of February and the first week of August of each year.
2. A week-long emergency summit of the G20 may be called at any time with the support of seven G20 members.
3. Participating members are invited to host these summits on a rotational basis based off the same order the World Census Report uses to update daily, with a preference given to those members that have not previously hosted a G20 summit.
4. G20 members may by majority vote decide to postpone an biannual summit by up to three months.
5. Any region or organization may decline to attend or host the aforementioned summits.

Article 3: Censure

1. By a two-thirds decision, the G20 may elect to censure an eligible member.
2. A censured G20 member is barred till the end of the calendar year from exercising its voting rights in the G20 or attending or hosting G20 summits.
3. The next eligible region, in terms of the criteria outlined in Section 1.1, shall be included as a G20 member, with full voting and hosting rights, in lieu of the censured member.

Article 4: Observer parties

1. Any region or organization eligible to participate in the G20 as a full voting member may opt to attend any G20 summit instead as a non-voting observer.
2. Other regions or organizations, not described in Article 4.1 or Article 3.2, may attend a G20 summit as a non-voting observer with the sponsorship and approval of three eligible member regions.
3. In the event that more than one party has reasonable claim as the legitimate government of a G20 region at the start of a summit, all such parties will be invited to sit as non-voting observers to the summit unless the other participating regions elect by a two-thirds decision to recognize one of the parties as the official representative for the region in question.

Founding the G9 and G20

Category: Declaration

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the need for a series of regular intergovernmental forum to facilitate discussions between major regions on current events and international challenges,

Believing that the international recognition and codification of these forums will help ensure structure, continuity, and adoption,

Hereby declares:

Formation
1. The Group of Nine (G9) encompasses all feeder and sinker regions. At the time of writing, this includes Balder, Lazarus, Osiris, The Rejected Realms, The East Pacific, The Pacific, The South Pacific, The North Pacific, and The West Pacific.
2. The Group of Twenty (G20) encompasses the G9, in addition to the eleven regions with the most highly endorsed WA delegates in NationStates (excluding the G9) on January 1st of the current year.
3. In the event of a tie, all qualifying regions will be included in the G20 for that year.

Annual summits
2. Diplomatic representatives of all eligible G20 regions are invited to attend an annual G20 summit during the first week of February of each year and all eligible G9 regions to an annual G9 summit during the first week of August of each year.

Special summits
3. A week-long emergency summit of the G9 or G20 may be called at any time with the support of three eligible members of the relevant group.

Rotational hosting
4. Participating regions are invited to host these annual and special summits on a rotational basis based off the same order the World Census Report uses to update daily, with a preference given to those regions that have not previously hosted a G20 or G9 summit.

Non-participation
5. Any eligible region may decline to attend or host the aforementioned summits.

Governments-in-exile
6. In the event that more than one party has reasonable claim as the legitimate government of a G9 or G20 region at the start of a G20 summit, all such parties will be invited to sit as observers to the summit unless the other participating regions elect by a two-thirds decision to recognize one of the parties as the official representative for the region in question.

[Andusre]

...

Is this just to make those 20 most powerful delegates feel nice and special inside so they vote for this... like, why?

Sorry to come across so harshly but this in practice would mean getting some regions who massively disagree with each other to be part of an organisation with no real power and would effectively just be some sort of shiny bragging rights for superdelegates.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Sorry to come across so harshly but this in practice would mean getting some regions who massively disagree with each other to be part of an organisation with no real power and would effectively just be some sort of shiny bragging rights for superdelegates.

You've essentially just described the real life G7 and G20...

The point of it is diplomacy and discussion between very different regions of differences, yes, as well as what common ground can be found. While I'm not sure how well this would work in practice, and I particularly hate that it will primarily benefit the GCRs and their closest allies the most, I think it merits some consideration.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will get the consideration it deserves.

[Kranostav]

I find this concept interesting, but this would require a great amount of work outside of just this proposal. We'd need a discord server for the meetings, a GP thread, perhaps a symbolic region, and gauging interest for all the parties involved so this isn't dead on delivery. I would suggest starting by reaching out to regional leaders to gauge interest, form a working concept with them, and then come back to this and pass a potential proposal confirming it when you have everyone on board.

[Tinhampton]

The Group of Nine (G9) encompasses all feeder and sinker regions. At the time of writing, this includes Lazarus, Osiris, The Rejected Realms, The East Pacific, The Pacific, The South Pacific, The North Pacific, and The West Pacific.

You missed out Balder

[Unibot III]

Tin, you don’t know how many times I re-read that at 2 AM to make sure I was including all of the GCRs, hahaha. I’m a bad Balder delegate.

I find this concept interesting, but this would require a great amount of work outside of just this proposal. We'd need a discord server for the meetings, a GP thread, perhaps a symbolic region, and gauging interest for all the parties involved so this isn't dead on delivery. I would suggest starting by reaching out to regional leaders to gauge interest, form a working concept with them, and then come back to this and pass a potential proposal confirming it when you have everyone on board.

I don’t think I’m the person to do that for a number of reasons — I think the principal lead on this could solicit feedback from all possible G9 and G20 members, gauge interest — then proceed when they know it’s popular enough to run with.

The passage time will give enough head’s up to the host to start building a logo, a Discord room, and float an agenda. In my experience, getting a lot of major regions on board for anything is like herding cats which is why it’s an attractive idea to constitute the G9 and G20 and move things forward with a general structure approved by the international community. Discussions over whether to have talks often don’t follow through, invites to talks however are often accepted.

Sorry to come across so harshly but this in practice would mean getting some regions who massively disagree with each other to be part of an organisation with no real power and would effectively just be some sort of shiny bragging rights for superdelegates.

You've essentially just described the real life G7 and G20...

The point of it is diplomacy and discussion between very different regions of differences, yes, as well as what common ground can be found. While I'm not sure how well this would work in practice, and I particularly hate that it will primarily benefit the GCRs and their closest allies the most, I think it merits some consideration.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will get the consideration it deserves.

Thanks Cormac, do you think it might be better to split the G9 and G20 as separate proposals?

I wasn’t sure. I recognize that there’s obvious some antipathy towards GCRs today, but I also saw the need for a body between GCRs to discuss issues especially close to them.

I could foresee dropping the G9 from the proposal and running with the G20 in its lonesome. And then at a later date, pursuing a G9 as a distinct proposal.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Thanks Cormac, do you think it might be better to split the G9 and G20 as separate proposals?

I wasn’t sure. I recognize that there’s obvious some antipathy towards GCRs today, but I also saw the need for a body between GCRs to discuss issues especially close to them.

I could foresee dropping the G9 from the proposal and running with the G20 in its lonesome. And then at a later date, pursuing a G9 as a distinct proposal.

I'm honestly not sure. On the one hand, I see the utility of both and I think it makes some sense to have them in a combined proposal. On the other hand, I do think having the G20 come first might encourage GCRs not to band together in the G9 first to decide what the G20 agenda is going to be.

But, on the other other hand, there would be nothing stopping the GCRs from doing that whether a G9 exists or not. And I'm not sure all the GCRs are on the same page enough, to say the least, to be able to band together and dictate an agenda for the G20.

So, basically, I'm not sure! But I do like the overall concept regardless.

[Comfed]

I think it’s an interesting concept to be sure.

[Nova Vandalia]

I appreciate the concept and the real world basis for this, but I don't think we should be in the business of expressing opinion about diplomatic relations between most regions and how those look.

Also Hot Take, and purely just my own personal opinion, GCR Peace and Cooperation isn't always in the best interest of UCR's, so I'm not sure I feel comfortable with the G9 being expressed as a good and correct thing by this body.

I do enjoy the idea and ingenuity of this though, but just can't see this as beneficial from where I sit in the NSGP because of those two things.

[Sanctaria]

Also Hot Take, and purely just my own personal opinion, GCR Peace and Cooperation isn't always in the best interest of UCR's, so I'm not sure I feel comfortable with the G9 being expressed as a good and correct thing by this body.

I don't know anything about GCR peace not being in the best interests of UCRs, but I'd be against this purely speaking as someone who spends most of their time in a UCR because this game gives enough credence and in-built unfair advantage to GCRs and I'd rather not also have the SC declare they should also have a special position.

Salty Userite, sure, but man. Everywhere you turn it's "look upon my GCR and despair".

[Nova Vandalia]

-snip-

Well now I have to change my opinion, as a child of the 80's 90's "I dont practice Sanctaria, and I dont need no crystal ball" Sorry off topic, terrible pun and outdated reference I know.

But for real full agreement, with that line of thinking as well, Sanctaria.

[Unibot III]

Thanks Cormac, do you think it might be better to split the G9 and G20 as separate proposals?

I wasn’t sure. I recognize that there’s obvious some antipathy towards GCRs today, but I also saw the need for a body between GCRs to discuss issues especially close to them.

I could foresee dropping the G9 from the proposal and running with the G20 in its lonesome. And then at a later date, pursuing a G9 as a distinct proposal.

I'm honestly not sure. On the one hand, I see the utility of both and I think it makes some sense to have them in a combined proposal. On the other hand, I do think having the G20 come first might encourage GCRs not to band together in the G9 first to decide what the G20 agenda is going to be.

But, on the other other hand, there would be nothing stopping the GCRs from doing that whether a G9 exists or not. And I'm not sure all the GCRs are on the same page enough, to say the least, to be able to band together and dictate an agenda for the G20.

So, basically, I'm not sure! But I do like the overall concept regardless.

My instinct (based only off ancient and mostly misremembered experience) is the GCRs couldn’t conspire to choose an ice cream flavour let alone coordinate between themselves prior to a G20 meeting.

This isn’t to dissuade people though from believing that a meeting of the minds can’t advance some answers to the big challenges facing NS.

I think the GCR/UCR distinction can be unhelpful in these cases because many GCRs have more in common with certain UCRs than they do other GCRs and vice versa. For instance, 10KI and Europeia are going to have clear and obvious allies in the G20 if they were to attend.

I’m inclined to think to address the current temper of the day, which is emphasizing the inequities between GCRs and UCRs, that the G9 proposal needs to be put aside for now. And the G20 might needed to be expanded (but I think 20 is a good number and too many more additions can make the summit unwieldy or unhelpful).

I will generate a list of the regions that would constitute the G20 as it stands today. That might be helpful for people in this thread to consider the proposal more concretely.

[Hulldom]

I understand the purpose of this but as reiterated elsewhere in this thread: there’s next-to-zero chance that this would work out in practice, even if this is, in theory, a good idea.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This runs into the ancient discussion on committees in the GA. Just because you say a committee now exists doesn't make it actually exist. I think it was either Fris or Hack which brought this up in the committees discussion of the GA rules revision in 2005. Perhaps that's a bit esoteric, but I don't see the point of "creating" a committee without the infrastructure that is needed to actually create it.

[Unibot III]

I understand the purpose of this but as reiterated elsewhere in this thread: there’s next-to-zero chance that this would work out in practice, even if this is, in theory, a good idea.

How so..?

_____________

This runs into the ancient discussion on committees in the GA. Just because you say a committee now exists doesn't make it actually exist. I think it was either Fris or Hack which brought this up in the committees discussion of the GA rules revision in 2005. Perhaps that's a bit esoteric, but I don't see the point of "creating" a committee without the infrastructure that is needed to actually create it.

I think there's a great purpose for founding a reoccuring forum without establishing the infrastructure to support the forum in the legislation:

(1) reoccuring intergovernmental forums won't occur without a prompt from an international body like the WA, due to the usual cat-herding - some ad hoc forums are occasionally run, but in 19 years of NS, we've never had a routinely occurring intergovernmental forum because of turnover, lack of continuity etc.

(2) providing some of the organizing structure for the forum evades messy multilateral decisions over details like hosting order and dates and membership that, while may seem trivial, are often the most politically sensitive aspects of these kinds of high political affairs - usually those are the kinds of things that torpoedo GP forums and events.

(3) the infrastructure shouldn't be codified because it should be left fluid for hosts to modify and adapt. Platforms change. Neutral moderators for the forums will have to be agreed upon. Logistics like these get sorted rather quickly, the actual intiation of the event itself often does not get off the ground without some sort of prompt or externality.

The actual infrastructure of an intergovernmental forum in NSGP is fairly easily introduced, the more significant obstacles to implementing an annual forum are political - and the most productive way to overcome those obstacles is the WA endorsing a general structure for the forum and intiating things directly. In the GA, I know that it is frowned upon to write a resolution that creates a committee, but in NSGP, intiating the creation of some new intergovernmental entity overcomes political barriers to international coordination that let otherwise good ideas wither away.

Using Jan 01 2021 as a reference point, the table below identifies the eligible members of the G20, G25, G27, G30 in the order of their update. The presence of Confederation of Corrupt Dictators (CoCD) could be extremely problematic in terms of getting this event off the ground and running and it may be worth considering what protocol should be in place for cases where a pariah region is eligible to sit on the intergovernmental forum -- is this an okay thing? I fear whether it's fair or unfair, the participation of CoCD could sink the idea and the organizers will have to take that into consideration.

My own thought is to run with the G20 and allow eligible members to elect to disqualify a member region (CoCD) by a majority decision - and disqualified members open up a space for the next eligible region (Forest). But this disqualification has to be reconsidered every year on a reoccuring basis.

G20	G20+5	G20+7	G20+10
Karma Europe CoCD Thaecia 10000 Islands The Communist Bloc the Rejected Realms Europeia The Leftist Assembly Conch Kingdom the West Pacific Osiris The North Pacific The FNR Anteria Balder the South Pacific Lazarus the Pacific The East Pacific	Karma Europe CoCD Forest Thaecia 10000 Islands The Communist Bloc the Rejected Realms Europeia The Leftist Assembly Conch Kingdom the West Pacific Osiris Democratic Socialist Assembly The LKE The North Pacific The FNR New Western Empire Cape of Good Hope Anteria Balder the South Pacific Lazarus the Pacific The East Pacific	Karma Europe CoCD Forest Thaecia 10000 Islands The Communist Bloc The UDoS the Rejected Realms Europeia The Leftist Assembly Conch Kingdom the West Pacific Osiris Democratic Socialist Assembly The LKE The North Pacific The FNR New Western Empire Cape of Good Hope Anteria Balder the South Pacific Lazarus the Pacific The East Pacific Wintreath	The Internationale Karma Europe CoCD Forest Thaecia 10000 Islands The Communist Bloc The UoDS the Rejected Realms Europeia The Leftist Assembly Conch Kingdom the West Pacific Osiris Democratic Socialist Assembly The LKE The North Pacific The FNR New Western Empire Cape of Good Hope Anteria Balder the South Pacific The Glorious Nations of Iwaku Lazarus Spiritus the Pacific The East Pacific Wintreath

[Imperium Anglorum]

(1) reoccuring intergovernmental forums won't occur without a prompt from an international body like the WA, due to the usual cat-herding - some ad hoc forums are occasionally run, but in 19 years of NS, we've never had a routinely occurring intergovernmental forum because of turnover, lack of continuity etc.

(2) providing some of the organizing structure for the forum evades messy multilateral decisions over details like hosting order and dates and membership that, while may seem trivial, are often the most politically sensitive aspects of these kinds of high political affairs - usually those are the kinds of things that torpoedo GP forums and events.

(3) the infrastructure shouldn't be codified because it should be left fluid for hosts to modify and adapt. Platforms change. Neutral moderators for the forums will have to be agreed upon. Logistics like these get sorted rather quickly, the actual intiation of the event itself often does not get off the ground without some sort of prompt or externality.

I don't buy that anyone is going to form this G20 just because the SC told them to.

[Unibot III]

(1) reoccuring intergovernmental forums won't occur without a prompt from an international body like the WA, due to the usual cat-herding - some ad hoc forums are occasionally run, but in 19 years of NS, we've never had a routinely occurring intergovernmental forum because of turnover, lack of continuity etc.

(2) providing some of the organizing structure for the forum evades messy multilateral decisions over details like hosting order and dates and membership that, while may seem trivial, are often the most politically sensitive aspects of these kinds of high political affairs - usually those are the kinds of things that torpoedo GP forums and events.

(3) the infrastructure shouldn't be codified because it should be left fluid for hosts to modify and adapt. Platforms change. Neutral moderators for the forums will have to be agreed upon. Logistics like these get sorted rather quickly, the actual intiation of the event itself often does not get off the ground without some sort of prompt or externality.

I don't buy that anyone is going to form this G20 just because the SC told them to.

Hahaha, I do.

The resolution doesn’t tell anyone to form the G20. It forms the G20 and invites the eligible members to host & participate in the G20. That’s an important distinction.

Now, some regions may decline at first — but most regions will agree to attend an exclusive international forum they’re invited to, and most regions won’t refuse an opportunity to host a major international forum they’re eligible to host either.

This is the strange psychology of NSGP. If there’s a pond with fish in it, major diplomatic powers would go hungry and starve. If you put out some fishing rods and tell them they and only they are invited to use the fishing rods, most diplomatic powers will start to fish and those that don’t will get on board later.

Trust old man time himself, I may be a hermit and a pariah but I know how the game is played. Left to its own devices, a G20 won’t likely ever get off the ground or endure as an event. Ratify a stupid resolution and the thing will never die.

Why don’t we pass the thing and see who is right?

I think that’s where the GA and the SC will have a very different relationship with committees, because the SC will be useful in overcoming the inevitable inability of GP to initiate and organize international forums, coalitions, and agreements.

In the GA, committees are a dirty little cheat to process decisions too complicated to address within the resolution itself. In the SC, committees will be a ground-breaking political tool. In the future, I strongly suspect that Declarations will serve as a way of organizing and initiating NSGP activities that are effectively unintiatable in the traditional context.

[Kranostav]

I don't buy that anyone is going to form this G20 just because the SC told them to.

Hahaha, I do.

The resolution doesn’t tell anyone to form the G20. It forms the G20 and invites the eligible members to host & participate in the G20. That’s an important distinction.

Now, some regions may decline at first — but most regions will agree to attend an exclusive international forum they’re invited to, and most regions won’t refuse an opportunity to host a major international forum they’re eligible to host either.

This is the strange psychology of NSGP. If there’s a pond with fish in it, major diplomatic powers would go hungry and starve. If you put out some fishing rods and tell them they and only they are invited to use the fishing rods, most diplomatic powers will start to fish and those that don’t will get on board later.

Trust old man time himself, I may be a hermit and a pariah but I know how the game is played. Left to its own devices, a G20 won’t likely ever get off the ground or endure as an event. Ratify a stupid resolution and the thing will never die.

Why don’t we pass the thing and see who is right?

I think that’s where the GA and the SC will have a very different relationship with committees, because the SC will be useful in overcoming the inevitable inability of GP to initiate and organize international forums, coalitions, and agreements.

In the GA, committees are a dirty little cheat to process decisions too complicated to address within the resolution itself. In the SC, committees will be a ground-breaking political tool. In the future, I strongly suspect that Declarations will serve as a way of organizing and initiating NSGP activities that are effectively unintiatable in the traditional context.

So from a legal standpoint, this does not create anything. You can say it does, but SC proposals have no method to create those things therefore it simply would not officially exist. I really do strongly suggest you attempt to get any indication of favor outside of this thread, and then move forward when you know it will actually have a chance, vs throwing something at the new category which will likely just end in arguing and never actually occuring.

Also your take on GA committees isnt really accurate, as they exist in an area where we cant micromanage or want to do so, so they make the most sense for resolutions that would require a continuous body to function

[Unibot III]

So from a legal standpoint, this does not create anything. You can say it does, but SC proposals have no method to create those things therefore it simply would not officially exist. I really do strongly suggest you attempt to get any indication of favor outside of this thread, and then move forward when you know it will actually have a chance, vs throwing something at the new category which will likely just end in arguing and never actually occuring.

Also your take on GA committees isnt really accurate, as they exist in an area where we cant micromanage or want to do so, so they make the most sense for resolutions that would require a continuous body to function

From a legal standpoint, this resolution does create a legal entity and a set of eligibility criteria. It just does not compel its eligible members to participate.

I am not in a position to discuss with possible attendees about their interest, but one word of caution is that, by nature, these kinds of 'feelers' are often circular and usually not very productive because you can spend the majority of your time debating whether it will happen, rather than whether it should.

I can almost assure you though that without a WA resolution, you're not likely to see a reoccuring intergovernmental forum be initiated. This idea that the resolution "does nothing" is a misunderstanding about how GP typically works (and doesn't work) - it's the initiation of an event and some of its (simple) structural components that are most perilously politically because little things like "who gets to host" and "when" bog down the whole idea, and FA departments can be chronically lethargic (they're not known to pro-active) - once you get some of the structure put out there, and the tracks laid, they mostly come to you.

My suggestion to anyone who is trying to organize these kinds of events or forums is to establish your intial feeler, speak with some likely partners, and then move forward with the proposal- you're not going to get strong opposition or strong advocacy, you're going to get a lot of "maybe?" "we'll see if it passes?" "will this work?" "are people doing to go through with it?" and that turns into active participation later on once the idea progresses into action.

The WA "Declaration" category will be useful in breaking through the usual mire of noise, inaction, and cynicism - and laying out the terms of participation.

Now do I think major regions, likely to be eligible for the plan, should be consulted on the terms of participation and structure? Yes, I think so. But I'm not the right person for that task and I see this draft, not as a final draft, but a "proof of concept" for a willing and more appropriate sponsor to take, adapt, and push forward with. I don't particularly care the details of the text of the resolution, but I wanted to open the conversation and flesh out how such a resolution might work.

[Hulldom]

Why I don’t think this will work even though I think this is a great idea:

1. Goals. What exactly would the defined goal of a G20 group be on NationStates, furthermore, what exactly would the use of it be if there’s not some idea of what the utility of said a group would be?

2. The Feasibility of Working Together. Are we going to pretend that groups like oh, say, Osiris and Balder can work together in the G10? Or Karma and Thaecia in a G20? It’s a ludicrous proposition that while it will hopefully at least allow for discussion will allow for nothing concrete to ever occur. Also, what utility does such an idea hold for a region like Europe that doesn’t do GP compared to somewhere like XKI where GP (in this case R/D is the primary thing to do)!

3. Flexibility. Obviously we’d love to see this work out, or at least I would, but could such a group be amended in the future to allow for new entrants/replace old ones that fall out of this group? It may seem trivial, but I don’t think you want to get into a situation where (for instance) Karma falls out of the Top 20 and a region like Cape of Good Hope rises into the Top 20 in this endos metric and there’s no way to replace them. Also, how would this work of two regions (like let’s say Conch Kingdom and Thaecia, for instance) continually trade 20th position? I’m sure you could define this in the resolution so it would be easy to replace them, but.,,.is it worth doing this noting the above?

[Durm]

Needs more Chicken Overlords.

[Auphelia]

3. Flexibility. Obviously we’d love to see this work out, or at least I would, but could such a group be amended in the future to allow for new entrants/replace old ones that fall out of this group? It may seem trivial, but I don’t think you want to get into a situation where (for instance) Karma falls out of the Top 20 and a region like Cape of Good Hope rises into the Top 20 in this endos metric and there’s no way to replace them. Also, how would this work of two regions (like let’s say Conch Kingdom and Thaecia, for instance) continually trade 20th position? I’m sure you could define this in the resolution so it would be easy to replace them, but.,,.is it worth doing this noting the above?

I do not know how well the rest of it would work or how feasible this proposal is, but your question is answered here:

Formation
2. The Group of Twenty (G20) encompasses the G9, in addition to the eleven regions with the most highly endorsed WA delegates in NationStates (excluding the G9) on January 1st of the current year.
3. In the event of a tie, all qualifying regions will be included in the G20 for that year.

From this and based on the meeting date of February, the positions will be determined as of the first day of the new year and hold that position until the same time next year, in which case they may be replaced should they fall below another region.

[Hulldom]

3. Flexibility. Obviously we’d love to see this work out, or at least I would, but could such a group be amended in the future to allow for new entrants/replace old ones that fall out of this group? It may seem trivial, but I don’t think you want to get into a situation where (for instance) Karma falls out of the Top 20 and a region like Cape of Good Hope rises into the Top 20 in this endos metric and there’s no way to replace them. Also, how would this work of two regions (like let’s say Conch Kingdom and Thaecia, for instance) continually trade 20th position? I’m sure you could define this in the resolution so it would be easy to replace them, but.,,.is it worth doing this noting the above?

I do not know how well the rest of it would work or how feasible this proposal is, but your question is answered here:

Formation
2. The Group of Twenty (G20) encompasses the G9, in addition to the eleven regions with the most highly endorsed WA delegates in NationStates (excluding the G9) on January 1st of the current year.
3. In the event of a tie, all qualifying regions will be included in the G20 for that year.

Thanks for that. And assuming it’s a once yearly thing that would do. But if it was to be some sort of continual cooperation, I reiterate the problems I think could arise.

From this and based on the meeting date of February, the positions will be determined as of the first day of the new year and hold that position until the same time next year, in which case they may be replaced should they fall below another region.

[Auphelia]

Thanks for that. And assuming it’s a once yearly thing that would do. But if it was to be some sort of continual cooperation, I reiterate the problems I think could arise.

I think it means that whatever regions are in the top 20 as of January of a year maintain their position in the G20 throughout that year, the recount every year then determining if they are replaced or not.

I think it is an interesting concept. I may be biased as a staunch TSPer, but whether people like it or not, regions with more people and WA members have more power. To create a structured system of dialogue between these major voting powers might be something quite nice to do. At the very least, I don't see any harm that could be done.

EDIT: Though after being informed of the OOC actions of the creator, I do not think this proposal has nearly enough merit to benefit from a pity passing.

[Frenchy II]

I would be against this in any format. Small regions and folks in them do not deserve to be swallowed up by the GP political community. This is just a stab at those who manage R/D regions.