Firstly, this emergent innovation movement is rhizomatic not hierarchical. The various waves of ideas and chaordination which are helping this loosely distributed mesh of “knowmads” get together on things which matter to us are coming from all directions. There are initiators but no leaders; many alliances but few static groups. Labeling this movement will be the unsavory task of journalists, as it always has been. And more likely than not we will wind up with another term such as “generation Y” or “augmented reality” or “transmedia” which creates more problems than it solves. So while I admire the desire to take the initiative to name this movement in order to give it momentum and acceleration, the shape of the movement is by nature amorphous and naming it will unnecessarily limit the collective imagination.

Secondly, there cannot be a “brand” created for that which is not incorporated. As a social movement, using the language of branding positions our efforts as a parody of the public relations acrobatics of large corporations. The word branding originates from the act of pressing a hot iron bearing a rancher’s insignia into the living flank of a cow. Branding is synonymous with ownership. In an ecosystem of open innovation, where we share ideas and processes towards a better collective good, ideas of ownership and property must evolve.

Rather than branding this movement as just another psycho-emotional product to be consumed (see other movements such as Adbusters or The Tea Party) let’s hide out in the underground as long as we can. We can focus our efforts on making our best practices and radical processes well-documented and easy to understand. We can expand upon open legal frameworks such as Creative Commons to redefine our values of authorship and intellectual property. We can use the power of social networks and digital video to spread good ideas in formats accessible to our friends and colleagues.

Forget making this movement a brand. Let’s make it a meme.