It might seem tempting to go along with the name change from Burma to Myanmar instigated by the generals back in 1989, given the colonial associations with "Burma" - however the name change has been resisted by many who do not accept the legitimacy of the of current regime.
There's an interesting piece online on this.
Of course there have been many other name changes especially within Asia where the BBC and the international community have gone with the decision made by a particular country… eg Mumbai but not (yet) Kolkata. But in India there has been debate and discussion which the BBC has reported and many times been part of. There has been no similar dialogue within Burma.
Not all name changes have stuck. Cambodia became Kampuchea under the Khmer Rouge in 1975. It is now of course back to being Cambodia. I am told the BBC stayed with Cambodia throughout.
The fact that many news organisations and official bodies - although by no means all - have started using "Myanmar" does mean that we need to also acknowledge that usage in many of our stories and links. So you might hear Burma and Myanmar in a story or cue but never Myanmar alone.
To change the name now would itself be seen as making a statement about the legitimacy of one side. We have not supported one side by leaving the name as "Burma", but have simply let the status quo remain.
I think the key point in the discussions here at the BBC World Service is that we change a name when it is a settled and lasting change - Burkina Faso for instance (formerly called the Republic of Upper Volta). And only in those circumstances. Even after all this time Burma is not a settled issue - is it?