<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jul 24, 2012, at 1:27 AM, David Cake wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">I would actually be interested to see Option 5 - settle once and for all whether there is any legal obligation, by treaty or statute, for the IOC and ICRC names. I believe this would eliminate the IOC claim and greatly diminish the IGO claim. </span></blockquote></div><br><div>I agree. An independent study, not by the GC. Positions are entrenched and nobody's convincing each other, so an additional input could be useful if sourced correctly.</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></body></html>