Participants create a name for an organization.
1) The full group (of approximately 30 people) brainstormed names. We had a list of approximately 30-40 generated.
2) We took that list and added any other permutations you could construct with similar words - Alliance - Society - etc...
3) We discussed the meanings and perceptions of each of those words.
4) We looked at the acronyms and ease in translating worldwide.
5) From the remaining list, we conducted a private vote.
6) When we tallied the votes, the few names that received the highest vote counts were discussed and voted on again, until we received near unanimity on one name, and asked if there were any remaining concerns. After those were aired, the group agreed to the name.
7) After that meeting, the name then was checked for any other organizations using it, legal issues, etc.and everyone given time to think about it, until a final decision was made within two weeks.
Sandy Schuman ads a variation on this procedure. "Rather than look at a long list of variations I have used a series of columns with redundant alternatives in each column, that is, you pick only one item from each column. For example (shortened for illustrative purposes):
consensus - disagreement - society
consensus-building - dispute - institute
agreement - impasse - forum
settlement - conflict - roundtable
let to the name, "Forum on Conflict and Consensus"
Follow-Up Required: Check names
Source: Bonnie Koenig
Derived from: unknown