How large large is the issue?
How many have been reserved under those conditions?
Who holds them in the meantime (in escrow)?

The following is from the Problem Statement:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00.txt

and in my opinion means that we should just keep a watching brief on the discussion
for now.  - Sam L.

In recent years, using the last label of a domain name (aka TLD) as
   switch to indicate how to treat name resolution has been experimented
   using the framework of [RFC6761].  Examples of such switches include:
   .example (don't resolve), .local (use mDNS), .onion (use tor), any
   TLD registered in IANA-maintained root-zone (use DNS).

   Such usage, which a few commenters have referred to as "protocol
   switching," is not limited to "protocol switch" in the strict sense
   of indicating specific protocols on the wire.  It could indicate to
   switch to another name space (eg .onion), use a different protocol
   (eg tor, or mdns), or indicate to use a local DNS scope by not using
   the DNS root for name resolution (eg .home in homenet) or something
   else altogether.

-and-

 [RFC6761] introduced a framework by which, under certain
   circumstances, a particular domain name could be acknowledged as
   being special.  This framework has been used to make top-level domain
   reservations, that is, particular top-level domains that should not
   be used within the DNS to accommodate parallel use of non-DNS name
   resolution protocols by end-users and avoid the possibility of
   namespace collisions.

   Various challenges have become apparent with this application of the
   guidance provided in [RFC6761].  This document aims to document those
   challenges in the form of a problem statement, to facilitate further
   discussion of potential solutions.