The need to accelerate the process by which corporations and others come up with globally-aligned initiatives that actually work implies various design-guidelines. For instance, a Global Guild must be deeply Participative in its interactions with other bodies because the reality is that people who have a choice in designing proposals tend to accept the consequences whereas those who are not involved usually just blame others. Such a Participative approach will also help constrain the size of a Global Guild, which otherwise will have a tendency to bloat even though it needs to remain flexible and dynamic by keeping its center relatively small. In a world where government departments can employ tens of thousands of people, a Global Guild should not ever grow to have an inner-core of more than around two-hundred people. To put that size in proportion, it is the typical upper-limit of an efficient department in the private sector.

For the hub of a Global Guild to remain that small it will, of necessity, be forced to tie tightly into the best of the existing corporate and non-corporate bodies that are already focused on individual threats. These include fully-governmental organizations such as the IPCC for issues of climate change or the WHO for global public health. But that is as it should be. Duplication is inefficient. And any attempt at centralizing into a Global Guild some of the key activities of other institutions, would almost guarantee resentment and lack of cooperation from the very organizations with which the Global Guilds need to participate most closely. Good management-practice these days dictates that any activities that two-hundred highest-caliber individuals  do not have time for (assuming they all use top-of-the-range computing and high-tech support) are far better handled by more-specialized components anyway, which is exactly what the operating-guideline of being Participative would also suggest.