Jeff, Jonathan, all,
first of all, thank you Jeff and your colleagues for a well written and thoughtful draft letter. 

Following Jonathan's proposal, let me respond as follows:

1.       Is the approach taken below one which you broadly do or do not support?

I do support that aproach.

2.       If yes to 1 above, please indicate if there are any additional areas not covered or areas that could be improved?

A.

I think it would be helpful to add some history, which we have discussed this during the IGO-INGO WG call. We might want to point out that the Reserved Names WG has dealt with this issue a few years back and - while not particularly having discussed the IOC RCRC, there was an intentional decision not to add such designations to the reserved names list. The group wanted to leave the protection to the RPMs. 

This point should be made IMHO because it underlines that this is a topic that has been part of policy making in the past and that it should not be dealt with differently. Even the IOC, in its letter of February 11, 2011, made a statement that clearly indicates that merely reserving the names is not in their interest and that an exemption procedure is needed, which requires policy work: