I'm afraid your chain of 4 -ing words simply doesn't work in English, Alexander!

I think you need to clarify the intended meaning, and slim it down, trying to avoid some of those gerunds or whatever.

Licence to conduct organized gambling activities

would seem to be somewhat closer.

Generally, we would license a person or company 'to do something', whilst we might license premises of some kind 'for gmbling' etc. — so that let's you get rid of the first -ing at least!

And while you might 'conduct the organization of gambling', it is hard to understand how one could possible 'organize the conducting of gambling'

I think you really need to get a long way further from the original-language text, and it might help you to do some further research into the sort of titles used for similar licences in English-speaking countries.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 mins (2007-09-07 22:02:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Oops, apologies for the typos, it's late and my eyes have gone! That should have been 'gambling', and of course 'lets' without the apostrophe!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 mins (2007-09-07 22:11:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Apart from anything else, what you've got amounts to tautology, since 'carry out', 'organize' and 'conduct' mean in effect pretty much the same thing in this sort of context.

'perform' would be somewhat further from the meaning you need, I think: 'perform surgery / gymnastics / miracles' perhaps, but hardly 'perform organization' — there's already a verb for that, it's called 'to organize'

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2007-09-08 07:39:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Re: your modified suggestion below:

No, it doesn't really make a lot more sense!

For a start, it's 'activities of' and not 'on'

But in any case, all these redundant verbs are not at all natural in EN — what is the actual essence of what you are trying to say? Why is there a specific need to differentiate between 'organize' and 'conduct' (which in most contexts would refer to roughly the same idea)?

In what way is this supposed to be different from a 'gaming licence', as Michael has suggested?

Maybe if you tell us what is so special about this particular licence, we could help you find appropriate wording.

And why 'gambling games'? Normally, we speak of 'gambling' or of 'gaming' — is there a special reason why you think you need both?

Is this perhaps a general licence for someone to organize gambling, but not at one fixed location? All this sort of ionformation, possibly obvious to you, would make things a lot clearer for the rest of us!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2007-09-08 07:40:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I incorrectly credited 'gaming licnece' to Michael, instead of cjguy. My apologies to both!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 hrs (2007-09-08 09:01:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OK? Alexander, that helps a lot!

In that case, I think my original suggestion fits the bill perfectly: it is sufficiently non-specific ('gambling activities' or even 'activities involving gambling') to cover all the areas you mention, and is not in any way tied to specific premises (as a 'gaming licnece' would be) — the only key factor is that they are 'organized' activities, i.e. not just informal ones (like a raffle at a church fête!) — think of it like 'organized crime' as against 'petty criminal'

I think you'll have to work very hard to find a much better solution here.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs (2007-09-08 10:00:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

No, I'm afraid not, Alex — 'carry on the organization of' is not only tautological, but arguably ambiguous, since 'carry on' can mean 'continue' — what's wrong with just saying 'organize'?

And likewise, 'activities on conducting games of chance' — 'activities' and 'conducting' amounts to another tautology, and as I said before, you can't say 'activities on...'

I do think that 'games of chance' is arguably better, so how about:

'Licence to organize activities involving games of chance'

??

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 hrs (2007-09-08 13:15:44 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

4) Well it almost could be Alex — except for the fact that I've just realized that 'games of chance' could hardly be stretched to include, for example, bookmaking... and I even wonder about gambling machines too?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day17 hrs (2007-09-09 15:39:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sadly, Alex, merely adding 'conducting' doesn't in any way solve the fundamental issue: that 'bookmaking' is not really included in 'games of chance' (though all the others are, IMHO) — not that there isn't at least some element of 'chance' in horses (etc.) racing, but betting on it isn't exactly a game.

I don't know why you're so attached to this word 'conducting' — it really sits uncomfortably to my ears with anything like 'gambling'; you can conduct an orchestra, and you can conduct an enquiry; you can even conduct business; but I think you're trying to use it in the wrong sense here.