Because I think it makes no difference what this group (or these
meetings) are called, let me suggest a different distinction.
For this group to meet and exchange ideas and updates is, IMO,
completely reasonable and beneficial for the reasons outlined in
John Curran's note. If they get together, meet quietly, and
then go back to their respective organizations and report and
discuss topics as appropriate,
Amen.
I think there are considerable
benefits and can't imagine any harm resulting. Issues arise
when people start issuing group "statements" or press releases
because that is the point at which questions of authority to
issue such statements and the legitimacy of the group as a
decision-making or position-forming entity arise.
Bingo !
Personally, I don't want us to tell Jari and Russ (or anyone
else) to never issue a statement of press release. Not only
would that be unreasonable but there may be circumstances in
which the advantages of doing so (or the disadvantages of not
doing so) clearly outweigh any risks. But, especially after
some of the lurid interpretations of the Montevideo
"declaration" and what it has been used to justify, I'd hope
that the participants in these meetings can go easy on
statement-issuing in the name (whatever that is) of the group.
Agreed.
-J