I'm sure, Trevor, they don't call it Carrick when they're singing Carrickfergus. And I'm sure if some big foreign company were to arrange with some forerign goivernment to call iot Carrick-Coca-Cola, I don't think they'd be too happy about that either, which is more or less what happened to Derry. And of course the point is, whether it's Carrick or Derry or St Petersburg, it'as the people who live there who decide what it's to be called.
Incidentally,if you spell it Doire or Derry it's the same name, just a different spelling convention - just as if you spell my name Caiohmghen or Kevin, it's the same name. And there's several other ways of spelling Trevor as well.
As for the decommissioning - what is so hard about recognising that getting rid of one lot of weapons is essentially a symbolic gesture, since they can always be replaced? Treating "decommissioning" as a shibboleth is essentially a way of trying to derailthe peace process. The Good Friday agreement recognised that disarming was something that is only going to happen in a significant way as peace becomes the normal state of affairs, and when powersharing has lasted a reasonable length of time. I don'tb think that many people would see seventy-two days is not a reasonable length of time in that context.
The last time the IRA got rid of its weapons, there were pogroms in the North in 1969 (not a direct consequence, but when the mobs and B Specials and the RUC came in looting and burning, they knew there wasn't going to be armed resistance).
The outcome of that was the British Army being sent in "to keep the peace", and inevitably soon after that a vastly greater stock of arms in use by the re-formed and expanded IRA. So it's easy to see why there's a certain reluctance on the part of the IRA to disarm again, even aside from the symbolism involved. But some symbolic gestures could still play a useful role, and probably will, before things are through.