none of us need be associated with each other and the smaller the org, the more direct action can get done.
There's a fairly recent name for this (familiar) concept, minilaterals. Minilaterals are small cooperative networks (of various size, from a clutch of people to nations) aligned by values or strategic needs and who shape their interactions, peer learning, and policy agendas.
This is a discussion of minilaterals in the context of digital technology but it captures the concept well, explaining upsides and downsides.
…several characteristics of minilaterals. These forums have tended to be informal, discussion-based, often led by government officials with specialised expertise, and built on individual relationships of trust among their members. This informality grants them perceived advantages such as speed, flexibility, modularity, and room for experimentation, which, we argued, were qualities further enhanced by the use of digital technologies in their modes of work. The low profile Digital Nations (DN) group has showcased the benefits of such characteristics in advancing collective knowhow on digital public services, developing the trust between members required to cooperate on thorny areas of innovation, from digital IDs to responsible implementation of AI within the public sector.
The flipside of this informality is often a little discussed lack of development in the prosaic, technical aspects of minilateral design. Many minilateral groups lack a secretariat or collective budget, posing challenges for decision-making, funding allocation, and institutional memory—how organisations remember what has worked or not before. The G7, a significant gathering of major industrial democracies, lacks a permanent secretariat. The organisational capacity of I2U2 is also limited in governance structure and staffing commitment. 3SI has reportedly struggled to maintain momentum between summits. For minilaterals to foster effective long-term technology cooperation and help nation-states navigate an environment of rapid technological change, they must now address crucial questions and trade-offs regarding organisation, governance, accountability, and global positioning.
https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/08/01/2024/era-tech-minilaterals-here-will-they-prove-effective
Sarah Pedersen has, of course, referred to mumsnet FWR as a subaltern counterpublic.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4478528-theyve-got-an-absolute-army-behind-them-womens-cooperative-constellation-in-Scotland