I agree completely with this.  I see no reason to add _any_ reserved names.
In fact I think the push should be to remove names from the reserved list.  Recently all sort of geographical and other names have been added to protected status of one sort or another.
In fact other than perhaps, test and example, I see no reason for most of the names on the reserved list to be there. i think other mechanisms could be used to block them from being (mis)used.

adding reserved names seems to me to be a really bad idea.

avri

On 5 Oct 2011, at 09:02, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> TLD .olympic, .red-cross, .ngo, .iso, .intl, .iata (variant
>> .aita),  .icao (variant .oaci) and .code should be protected.
>> 
> 
> Protected from what? 
> 
> Since when does someone own .ngo? If so, who?
> 
> Why .intl? Who has rights in that? Why? 
> 
> JFC, I believe that the whole attitude here is wrong. I strongly resist the idea that we can create fiat global property rights in alphanumeric character strings just because someone on an email list thinks it's a good idea to "protect" whatever happens to be his or her pet organization. Lets try to be more systematic and think about long term consequences, clear rules, etc.  
> 
> 
> --MM