It is likely to be far to late, and pushing for such a "cosmetic" modification may cost much energy for no change in essence. But the idea itself deserves to be examined: is it really true that there would be no difference if the exchange format known as IFC had been called BIM?. Imagine how much lower the threshold to resistance will be when parties on a project would agree on exchanging their BIM files. The adoption of IFC in Step format was born with a bad name, and I'm afraid is far too late.
Industry Foundation Classes is, as far as I have experienced, the best data structure and ontology distribution to describe and organize Building's data. (Also the most politically successful and correct among the BIM aristocracy)**. No proprietary format has the broad spectrum and capacity IFC has (or as by the date I'm writing this); and if there is such a format out there, I'd love to be proven wrong and taken one level up from ignorance.
With the high speed adoption of the ISO19650, or at least interest upon the standards, it is likely that in the long run, such digital "common place" will be the norm, not the exception... whatever format name we end up using... ifc, ifczip, ifcxml, json, and ad infinitum. Remember: ISO 19650 does not mention IFC. Not even once, so far. But "winks" at it by recommending the alignment to ISO12006 - "Organization of information about construction works", so the ontology is there to stay a few more years.
Now, coming back to the naming issue... maybe the time to call the format *.BIM is gone.
Should we call it . Twin?
*Footnote 1: Title inspired (copied) and content heavily influenced by a blog post from Zolna Murray. You can find it here: https://debunkthebim.blogspot.com/2021/04/an-ode-to-archicadorcan-we-call-it.html
**Footnote 2: Loosely based on Dion Moult's original though of IFC as being "not the best but the most politically correct form of BIM"