Thanks very much.
I want to congratulate John for having so far done a great job on the games. I know that VANOC has worked very hard to meet a whole lot of needs to protect people, including things like social housing, etc. So when I ask these questions, I want to make it very clear that this is about some of the confusion with regard to existing intellectual property law that is there and how this may or may not infringe, albeit for a short time, on some of that legislation.
One of the concerns we have is about some of the vagueness in some of the language here that is often referred to as “VANOC will make sure that”. Therefore, with all due respect to VANOC and the good work it has done, it means that you have a group of people making decisions with regard to seizing property, etc., and making applications to the court without that legal recourse people used to have in the past, which was to be able to have an injunction that said that it was irreparable harm. The irreparable harm piece I think is one that most people who deal in intellectual property law are concerned about, because they feel that this suddenly has changed the legislation for one group only, and that is VANOC during the Olympic Games. They have changed legislation because irreparable harm was an important piece of this legislation.
Having asked that question on the irreparable harm piece, which I think is of concern to most people, I know that VANOC has said they would come up with some guidelines about how they would interpret harm, etc., and how they would be fair. Do you know when those guidelines will come about? And why do you feel it's absolutely necessary to remove that need to show irreparable harm, as is normal for most intellectual property law?