Lots of discussion - nice . Let me start out by saying this thread wasn't about the federated system but rather in-game governance, but lots of replies dealt with that too so I'll reply in kind.

I'm not going to quote every person individually, because there are several overlapping things to address.

On the differences between UCR and GCR governance:
I'd argue - we're all here in the South Pacific because we like it for one reason or another, but obviously each one of us has things we'd like to change or would prefer differently. Our work here in the Assembly basically revolves around that - this is one of many forms of emergent play that is, in this case, a significant source of activity for forumites in all regions. We come together to find consensus to make things better overall.

This applies just as much to a UCR, and I'm sure that a great democratic feeder like ours has much to offer in resources and other things to many UCRs, which they would in turn repay with activity from their players in the shared cultural aspects (such as joint RP, journalism, and even contributors in the assembly).

On the possibility of reduced forum activity:
We'd be advertising the forum just as much as we already are, and it'd still be the place to go for the big RP, spam games, and heavier legislative discussions as it always has been. I don't think this is an issue.

On the difficulty of organizing in-game:
Our RMB is currently being swamped much more than usual due to a weird RP game thing going on. Usually, there are far less posts per day than now. So, considering that, plus experiences we can gather from regions like TWI and Forest, we should be able to find a workable solution. Cormac suggested, in his LC campaign, to declutter the pinned dispatches on the WFE, for example.

On having a GC:
Please, no. GCs are horrible. Let's only do that if we really need to, and I argue we don't! We can set goals and work towards them piece-by-piece. My suggestion in the OP isn't something to do in one step either, but also step-by-step.

On the fear of becoming imperialist:
As I see it, the point isn't to expand our outreach for the sake of expansion, but rather as a tool for driving activity. We can offer security, stable governance, resources, and other such things to "colonies" which they repay with activity from players that participate in canon RP, spam games, assembly discussions, maybe even cabinet members, and such.

On trying to establish a full government in-game:
I don't think this is the case - Establishing the equivalent of a full feeder government in-game would be crazy! My point was to give them an actual base to start with, delineated to local ("municipal") governance and see how they develop it. That would include the entirety of the setup of the LC, including how it's elected, how laws are presented, and how the representative of the region to the Coalition is. For other things, the Coalition would have the mandate - foreign affairs, military affairs, security institutions, and arbitrations through the court systems.

On regional officers:
This would be something negotiated between region and coalition via contract. Obviously, CRS members need RO; it could be argued whether or not Cabinet members need it, and the region would surely want officers for themselves too (for polls, mass TGs, and such). And finally, it's just the Delegate's job to make sure that's taken care of.

On the Local Council representative:
I don't think the coalition should have any say in this whatsoever. The region decides, through whichever mechanism they want, and that's who it is, end of story. Note: We may have to rethink our law that requires a game-side vote for certain assembly bills (most likely, we drop it as if it requires game-side vote, it should be sourced game-side as it is!)

On cultural events that blend game-side and forum-side:
This is something to think about. The region could grant the Minister of Regional Affairs authority to do so, or the region could have its own RA person that would work with the MoRA. Either way would probably work, and we need to discuss the pros and cons.

On detachment between region and coalition:
That's a valid concern - we don't want to become TWP in that way. By making sure the coalition remains the Coalition of the South Pacific as well as enforcement via contract, we can take reasonable precautions to ensure that disenfranchisement between the region and the coalition can't occur. But yes, it's something to keep in mind throughout all of this!

On not having interested UCRs:
Well ... sorry, I think it's silly to say that because we don't have interested UCRs, it's not worth pursuing. How can UCRs get interested if they don't know that we have it as a goal, and don't know under which kind of model this would be? That's creating a chicken-and-egg problem where there doesn't need to be one.

Even if a federated model never actually happens, the changes we make (which, I argue, are much smaller than it seems) will likely benefit us either way.

On the distribution of responsibilities and the general setup:
In my ideal world view right now:
The assembly would be completely forum-side. A regional bloc vote could be considered, but is likely not even that important unlike in our current model. Any resident in a coalition-region is free to join, barring usual CRS/CoA checks.
The cabinet would be completely forum-side.
The CRS would be split into two pieces. One piece is the Defense Council (DC), which is per-region and represent trusted nations with high endorsements and high influence helping to secure the region (in a UCR, the founder would be part ex officio I suppose). The other piece is called (ominously) the South Pacific Intelligence Agency (SPIA) which takes care of the security aspects, and is a coalition-wide institution.
The court is coalition-wide as well. Disputes that happen game-side are arbitrated by the coalition court as well.
The local council, as we have it, wouldn't exist - each member region would have their own structure. TSP proper would probably have something called the local council which is elected democratically.

The region has its body of law dealing with municipal governance; the forum has the Charter and the laws as we have them now (stripped of a few things where we're currently quite heavy-handed on the region legislatively). At the center piece between the coalition and the region is a contract defining the terms of the relationship, in which it's spelled out which things the region lets the coalition do (see above), and the coalition sets certain demands for operation (such as: allowance for mass TGs in case of security relevance, appointment of certain ROs, etc.)

Or something like that.