<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><base href="x-msg://5398/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Jeff, Jonathan, all,<div>first of all, thank you Jeff and your colleagues for a well written and thoughtful draft letter. </div><div><br></div><div>Following Jonathan's proposal, let me respond as follows:</div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">1.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "> </span></span><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Is the approach taken below one which you broadly do or do not support?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; ">I do support that aproach.</div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">2.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "> </span></span><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">If yes to 1 above, please indicate if there are any additional areas not covered or areas that could be improved?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; ">A.</div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; ">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. </div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; ">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:</div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt; "></div></div></div></body></html>