Alan,

> If you know the name proposed by the official discoverers, perhaps you
> might reveal it, so those who are sensitive to the issue and agree with

I don't care about the names at all. I have to admit that I
cannot recall names or numbers as good as provisional
designations, so I mostly use only those.

Therefore I think we shouldn't generate more confusion
and give two names to one and the same asteroid ;-)
If IAU says it is now "Haumea", so should it be (one more stupid
name that I can't bear in mind). But everyone should know what
happened and how this name made it through the CSBN...

For those interested in what the name of 2003 EL61 would
have been, if rules were followed and fairness prevailed...
Ortiz et al. proposed the name "Ataecina".

I am not sure if I have the final version of the naming citation,
but they submitted something like this:

---
Ataecina 136108 Iberian goddess

(136108) Ataecina = 2003 EL61
Discovered 2003 Mar. 7 at the Sierra Nevada Observatory in the courseŽof
the Survey for large TNOs.
Ataecina is a pre-roman goddess worshiped in the ancient Iberian
peninsula and usually associated to the Roman Proserpina, the goddess of the
underworld. Ateacina, of likely Celtic origin, is one of the best known
Iberian deities.
---

Ataecina was worshiped in a region of Southern Spain that is
close to Sierra Nevada Observatory. Beside that, Proserpine's
mythological relation to Pluto made Ataecina a good proposal
for a "plutoid" like 2003 EL61.

R.