Global Governing Body should be elected by online community, users, volunteers... elected, not appointed.
This model is incompatible with the own recommendations of the WG. Points 1-2 stand for decentralization and decisions done close to the communities. This model is like a pyramid, where new structures are created. From a model of WMF and affiliates, we go to a model with at least two intermediate bodies.
For a random wikimedian, this means that he elects representatives for his affiliate, that the affiliate sends representatives to a regional hub, and that regional hub elects representatives for Global Body. GGB is formed by hub representatives, so there is a risk that GGB would only respond to the regional Hub and ignore the lower layers of the pyramid. What happens if regional elected representatives find themselves in the middle of nationalistic/interest/power struggles?
Local organizations have a great dependency of other structures (regional hubs, support structures), so the objective of the less dependence of WMF is not accomplished.
This model does not adapt to local context. We are a Thematical organization, and the only 2 thematical organizations in our movement have nothing in common to make a thematic support structure necessary. Which is Amical's Regional Structure? Iberocoop? Europe? Spain? Do we have the same local context than Latin America or Europe? Does our language have the same context that Basque or Spanish?
Emphasizing in such rigid regional structures in an internet-related project might create more problems that solve.
One particular user linked us this diagram dangerously similar to the proposed system. With regional institutions that embody autonomous areas, provinces etc. We don't want to make demagogic statements, it is a structure very commons in 20th century organizations, but not so interesting for the 21th where hierarchic organizations have been substituted for more decentralized models.
