I don't question the need to modernise and change, but how does the re-branding address this? Consultant seem to like it is a quick and easy (but never cheap) solution, but changing the letterhead means nothing without actual change. What is the BMC proposing to actually do to modernise and change? Attracting young people is a problem faced by most organisations in most fields. We must accept that there has been a significant cultural shift, and young people now socialise and organise in a different way, through social media. They don't feel a need to get involved with formal clubs and organisations. Why do you think re-branding will change this? How exactly will the rebranding assist in getting funding? Is this worth the loss of goodwill and heritage associated with the existing brand? Arguing that "climb" is not the same as "climbing" is, with respect, a feeble argument. This is not about dictionary definitions, it is about brand image. Within the outdoor community "climb" and "climbing" are primarily associated with rock climbing, other meanings are secondary. Is it worth alienating the very large number of other mountain users who do not consider themselves to be climbers? The fact that you feel the need to explain at length why "climb" does not exclude hillwalkers speaks for itself. If you have to explain your brand it is a failure. The consultation seems to have been carried out in secret, since nobody seems to have been aware this was going on. Why was the outdoor community not canvassed more widely for its views? I understand the decision-making process, but this appears to have been sprung on the Area Reps too and you have asked them to make "judgement calls" without them having had the opportunity to consult their local memberships. My understanding was that the Area Reps are there to act as a conduit between the membership and the NC, not to act on their own initiative. However, whilst there does seem to have been a failure of governance and communication here, that is not the main concern. The real issue is that it is very clear from the responses that most people are very concerned that the new name does not properly reflect what the organisation is there to do, and jettisons decades of its heritage. "Climb Britain" as an identity within the BMC to support what we all understand by "climbing" would be fine, but it is wrong for the organisation as a whole. This needs a complete re-think.