Although I agree with the concept of net neutrality, I'm not sure I understand how the proposal for a wiki name-change initiative came about. Would this change be a temporary one, meant to coincide with some real-world event that is happening, to be changed back to normal afterward? I think I could agree with a short-term change in support of the cause, but if this is intended to be a permanent change, it's a definite NO from me.
I think its ok to change the name temporarily, especially since its a part of the net community blackout and awareness period that's starting now for a few days. Advertising for interest is good no matter what you believe about it.
The rules, especially world-wide, should be as important now as any of the other traditional issues. Is a complex issue but needs to be discussed.
To Sitb, Google, Facebook and all of the usual suspects are in process of doing a special awareness campaign now, because there is motion to change the rules again to be happening soon. That's why now Fandy is asking probably.
To Epstein, it still exists because there are large forces at play still reforming changing markets, like traditional entertainment and established internet players. ATT and Cable are still vertically integrating and so are google et al. Its not necessarily that regular people have changed their minds or that the government itself is driving new policy. It could be argued that this particular incantation of rules is between the two existing hegemonies rather than about actual neutrality. AWS controls a very surprising amount of the cloud market for example.
Be careful exactly what it is you cheer for over the next few years, they never really were able to do a from the ground up "neutrality" rules to begin with.