Is this the most appropriate model for all countries and contexts?
If this is interpreted as F2F meetings, then risks creating a strong bias towards groups who can make it to capital cities.
If meetings are seen as the only place businesses is done — how does this fit with ideas of ongoing online and offline collaboration?
Perhaps better to think of the functions of the group should perform such as:
- Regularly discusses progress on development and implementation of the NAP;
- Regularly shares updates of discussions, either through meeting minutes, or agreed documents and statements from the group;
and then leave the modality for the groups operation as something to be developed locally, drawing on different examples from around the world.