Names don't matter much. ME is tainted. Change the name to whatever you want and the spin machine will taint that too. We have to tackle the source of the problem, and its not the name. The name does mis-communicate to the general public, and medical professionals do take the term ME more seriously, but as soon as they scratch a little deeper they come up the widespread unsubstantiated claims that ME is CFS, and that both ME and CFS are psychogenic disorders. Even if they don't believe that they often then conclude its a wastebasket diagnosis of no great value, substance or validity.
We need to identify the biomedical mechanisms and then name it, and use the hard data to quell any opposition. However its the scientists who will probably name it, not us.
However as a part of advocacy we need to use the term ME as much as possible, and CFS or ME/CFS as little as possible.
So the clinical diagnosis, what name we choose, is a quagmire. The research definition is however much more important. Currently the two to use are the CCC and the ICC. We need to focus on discrediting the other definitions as they select research cohorts that too heterogeneous.