PDA

View Full Version : US Trade Representative seeks public comment on Antigua beef


MiltonFriedman
11-16-2006, 01:19 PM
Although this seems to have slipped right past everyone, including the multi-million dollar lobbyists at the PPA, the October 19th Notice does say comments will be accepted after October 23d:

[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61808-61809]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-135]

================================================== =====================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS285]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States--
Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting
Services

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative
(``USTR'') is providing notice that the World Trade Organization
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), at the request of Antigua and Barbuda,
has established a panel under Article 21.5 of the WTO Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (``DSU'') to
examine the compliance of the United States with the DSB
recommendations and rulings in the matter of United States--Measures
Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services. The
panel request may be found at http://www.wto.org-
in a document designated as

WT/DS285/18. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning
the issues raised in this dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be
submitted on or before October 23 to be assured of timely consideration
by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to
FR0701@ustr.eop.gov, Attn: ``Gambling and Betting Dispute (DS285)'' in

the subject line, or (ii) by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640.
For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a
confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Busis, Associate General
Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-3150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Prior WTO Proceedings

On June 12, 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested a dispute
settlement panel to consider its claims that U.S. Federal, State and
territorial laws on gambling violate U.S. commitments under the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), to the extent that such laws
prevent or can prevent operators from Antigua and Barbuda from lawfully
offering gambling and betting services in the United States. The WTO
ruled on April 20, 2005, rejecting all of Antigua and Barbuda's claims
except the WTO ruled that for the United States to show that the
Federal gambling laws meet the requirements of the chapeau to Article
XIV of the GATS, the United States needed to clarify an issue
concerning Internet gambling on horse racing. On May 19, 2005, the
United States stated its intention to implement the DSB recommendations
and rulings. On April 10, 2006, the United States informed the DSB that
the United States had complied with the DSB recommendations and
rulings.

Issues Raised by Antigua and Barbuda

In its panel request under Article 21.5 of the DSU, Antigua
disputes that the United States has complied with the DSB
recommendations and rulings. Antigua raises the following issues:
(1) Antigua and Barbuda argues that the United States has not taken
any measure to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings.
(2) Second, Antigua and Barbuda characterizes U.S. compliance as
relying on a ``restatement of a legal position taken by a party to a
dispute,'' and argues that such action is legally insufficient under
the DSU to amount to compliance.
(3) Third, Antigua and Barbuda disputes that the U.S. compliance
brings the measures at issue within the scope of the GATS Article XIV
public morals/public order exception.

Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit their
comments either (i) electronically, to FR0701@ustr.eop.gov, Attn:
``Gambling and Betting Dispute (DS285)'' in the subject line, or (ii)
by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. For documents sent by fax,
USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the
electronic mail address listed above.
USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format, as
attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make
submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover
letters; information that might appear in a cover

[[Page 61809]]

letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the
extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included
in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files.
A person requesting that information contained in a comment
submitted by that person be treated as confidential business
information must certify that such information is business confidential
and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter.
Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such
and the submission must be marked ``Business Confidential'' at the top
and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page.
Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than
business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be
confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information
or advice may qualify as such, the submitter--
(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as ``Submitted in Confidence''
at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
(3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the
information or advice.
Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR
will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible
to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-
confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to
the dispute; and the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-
confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants
in the dispute; the report of the panel and; if applicable, the report
of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket
No. WT/DS285, Gambling and Betting Dispute) may be made by calling the
USTR Reading Room at (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to
the public from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.

Daniel E. Brinza,
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-17527 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P

meleader2
11-16-2006, 02:02 PM
i'm going to email him "lol repealaments"

Punker
11-16-2006, 02:05 PM
Cliff's notes:

Persons may submit their comments either (i) electronically, to FR0701@ustr.eop.gov, Attn:
``Gambling and Betting Dispute (DS285)

Email this address and comment that the US should repeal the UIGEA to comply with the WTO ruling.

Wake up CALL
11-16-2006, 04:59 PM
Didn't you pass away today at age 94? Were you typing this final post on your deathbed? If so, Bravo Sir, you fought the good fight.

Berge20
11-16-2006, 05:15 PM
I totally missed this one

MiltonFriedman
11-16-2006, 05:55 PM
No wonder I see dead people everywhere .... and it is DAMN hot here, too.

TakenItEasy
11-16-2006, 08:54 PM
This article in Slate was just brought to my attention.

It's regarding Antigua and it's WTO ruling and has an interesting angle.

http://www.slate.com/id/2153352/

rockfsh
11-16-2006, 09:14 PM
Here is another.

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/FTBs/FTB-024.html#8a

pifhluk
11-17-2006, 12:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Cliff's notes:

Persons may submit their comments either (i) electronically, to FR0701@ustr.eop.gov, Attn:
``Gambling and Betting Dispute (DS285)

Email this address and comment that the US should repeal the UIGEA to comply with the WTO ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sent a constructive email, everyone should do this.

adios
11-17-2006, 01:25 AM
Thanks for the link to the article. Looks like I may be able to download music for free from an Antigua site in the near future among other things.

Richas
11-17-2006, 05:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
According to a recent article, the United States is an important and lucrative part of the global Internet gambling market, worth $15.5 billion in "spend" value (the amount that gambling entities win from their clients).

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the Cato article right about this? I thought the $15.5bn number was the amount wagered not the net figure for the house?

MiltonFriedman
11-17-2006, 10:13 AM
PPA flat out blew this opportunity to address the WTO issue at a time the US government ASKED for comments. For a lobbying organization this is inexcusable and they would be fired, if they were not self-appointed. At the very least, they should get whatever lobbying help they hired to explain how IT blew this one.

I hope Michael B or Allyn Jaffries Shulman, the legal expert on the PPA Board, are not too busy with PPA's public support for a $20 home poker game or some such nonsense when THE REGULATIONS for the Act come up for Notice and Comment in the Federal Register.

( I am well aware that the Notice and Comment Request may be pro forma, but in regulatory lobbying matters you take EVERY opportunity to state your points.)

Berge, I certainly have no complaint with you, you've done all you do on the side from your real Hill job.

PPA however seems to forget their reason for existing. Their role is supposed to be a lobbying voice for poker players, and they collect millions of dollars for it. Their job is not to collect the money, then sit on their hands when real openings pop-up.

Berge20
11-17-2006, 11:41 AM
Perhaps.

I am not convinced that fighting this via the WTO is an effective means, or at least not the most effective means available to us. I'm happy to be pursuaded otherwise.

The reality is that any lobbying organization has limited resources (time, money, expertise, members) and must put those to where it deems most effective.

International trade matters are extremely complex and are much harder to influence from the perspective of an advocacy organization (IMO) than pursuing legislative or regulatory relief within the US.

I'm not saying that the PPA or others shouldn't have been aware or made others aware that this comment period was out there, but I don't think this is the end all, be all.

Beyond that, I don't want to comment on the specifics of the complaint in question without more research.

MiltonFriedman
11-17-2006, 12:55 PM
"I am not convinced that fighting this via the WTO is an effective means, or at least not the most effective means available to us."

I'll go further, it is NOT the most effective means by a longshot. But, that this Notice was missed or not acted on at all underscores a lack of attention to necessary detail.

Presumably, PPA WAS watching the Federal Register for a Notice about the Act's own Regulations. IF they were doing so, then all they would have needed to do was publish the Comments link and a suggested message to their VAST network of $125,000 + dues paying members.

My money says they were asleep at the switch. I would love to be proven wrong.

Berge20
11-17-2006, 02:27 PM
Can't disagree

Even though this case didn't directly attack the IG legislation/language passed recently, it is a battle in the overall fight that should have been looked at.

I don't really know what the best format or angle to send comments in on this matter. Obviously, thousands of "we want online poker" comments won't have any impact because you aren't making any specific arguments as to why USTR should act one way or another.

That gets into the nitty-gritty of the actual WTO filings and probably requires solid research and understanding of international trade law in this area.

metsandfinsfan
11-17-2006, 03:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Can't disagree

Even though this case didn't directly attack the IG legislation/language passed recently, it is a battle in the overall fight that should have been looked at.

I don't really know what the best format or angle to send comments in on this matter. Obviously, thousands of "we want online poker" comments won't have any impact because you aren't making any specific arguments as to why USTR should act one way or another.

That gets into the nitty-gritty of the actual WTO filings and probably requires solid research and understanding of international trade law in this area.

[/ QUOTE ]

possibly writing that you feel the new IG legislation allows US horse racing and lotteries to be bet on but not other gambling, which proves they are not allowing free trade when it comes to online gambling

autobet
11-17-2006, 04:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
why USTR should act one way or another.



[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe something like this. If the U.S. is going to pick and choose which rulings/guidelines it obeys why shouldn't other countries do the same?

The World Trade Organization ruled that the United States cannot block other countries from offering Internet gambling to U.S. residents. The WTO protects our patent and copyright laws around the world and we expect it to do so. If we want other countries to follow the guidelines and rulings of the WTO, shouldn’t we set an example and do the same?

ericicecream
11-17-2006, 08:12 PM
Antinua has poker, u.s. has poker (B&M). But the u.s. gov't is making it more difficult to access the Antigua poker because Antigua offers a more competitive product to u.s. customers (lower rake, more generous bonuses/comps, freerolls, etc), thus cutting off free trade and sending us to play u.s. B&M games.

Isn't this a valid argument for the WTO? Isn't this exactly what the WTO was set up for?

Or does it break down at a difference between online and B&M somewhere?

blutarski
11-18-2006, 11:04 AM
I think Antigua and the US will come to some agreement that will keep the status quo in place. The US will throw some money at Antigua in return for dropping their complaint.

Punker
11-18-2006, 11:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The US will throw some money at Antigua in return for dropping their complaint.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand, the online gaming sector employs a substantial percentage of Antiguan economy. I don't think "throwing some money" at them will compensate for the potential loss of that economy.

MiltonFriedman
11-19-2006, 12:20 AM
The US could buy off Antigua pretty cheaply if it were so inclined, but it won't do so.

Yes, a lot of Antiguans work for online gaming or rent offices/property to online gaming or at businesses which service online gaming. However, there are only about 65,000 people in the whole country. If the US decided to finish the airport and subsidize airline service, create some official call-center in Antigua .... maybe for the IRS, or otherwise commit to support of an alternative sector to online gaming, then Antigua could drop the complaint .... but the US won't do that.

Jeff Oneye
11-19-2006, 08:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cliff's notes:

Persons may submit their comments either (i) electronically, to FR0701@ustr.eop.gov, Attn:
``Gambling and Betting Dispute (DS285)

Email this address and comment that the US should repeal the UIGEA to comply with the WTO ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sent a constructive email, everyone should do this.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks for making this suggestion. Also, I appreciate having this brought to our attention. I fired off an email as well, which I included below (I'm admittedly not that well-versed on the law, but I will spend time and energy on behalf of my poker hobby).

On another note, I think too many people here spend way too much time criticizing the PPA. From petty gripes about their CEO's awkward mannerisms on TV to allegations of "chronic incompetence," we find an endless barrage of criticisms. Is this really necessary? It's not like they have an easy battle to fight. This fight is relatively new; and they lack the entrenched organization, public support, and funds of their adversaries (e.g. FRC, NCALG). If you want to fault find, there are better targets. Personally, I'd rather invest my resources trying to do something more constructive. Before making another perfunctory criticism of the PPA, consider that the overwhelming public sentiment is probably accurately captured here: NCALG's web page (http://www.ncalg.org/Gambilng%20Inside%20Story.htm)

Jeffrey (email submitted below)


Greetings,


The US should repeal the UIGEA to comply with the WTO ruling. If we want to break down trade barriers we need to demonstrate a willingness to abide by our own recommendations. The status quo is unacceptable and rightly casts the US as hypocrites. We should be willing to support free trade even when certain interest groups find it inconvenient. A consistent support of free trade does not mean closing our markets to other countries wishing to compete with our domestic gaming industry. It is laughable hyprocrisy to claim compliance while affording domestic horseracing, state lotteries, and fantasy sports unimpeded and legal access to our markets. Demonizing foreign competitors who seek access to our markets does not make them criminals or boogeymen. However, it does reflect a worrisome trend of protectionism-the devil is in the details.

Jeffrey

Uglyowl
11-19-2006, 11:06 AM
I like you e-mail Jeffrey.

From NCALG's web page

[ QUOTE ]
compulsive gambling typically seizes the lives of 1.5% to 2.5% of the adult population. That amounts to three to five times the number of people suffering from cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a despicable comparison!

People die of cancer (564,000+ this year alone) and are no longer in the comparison I guess.

If you are in remission you don't count either. There are well over 10 million Americans who have been or are being treated for cancer in the United States.

This is insane they are insinuating that gambling addiction is more prevalent than cancer in the United States.

tangled
11-19-2006, 12:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Antinua has poker, u.s. has poker (B&M). But the u.s. gov't is making it more difficult to access the Antigua poker because Antigua offers a more competitive product to u.s. customers (lower rake, more generous bonuses/comps, freerolls, etc), thus cutting off free trade and sending us to play u.s. B&M games.

Isn't this a valid argument for the WTO? Isn't this exactly what the WTO was set up for?

Or does it break down at a difference between online and B&M somewhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I dont think Antigua winning in the WTO is the problem. They have already won the first round and as a smarter-than-me poster has said: Prohibition II turns a "homerun into a grandslam". The US is wrong and thumbing its nose at international law it helped to create. But what can the WTO or Antigua do about it? That 's the question.

whitepotatoe
11-19-2006, 11:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I like you e-mail Jeffrey.

From NCALG's web page

[ QUOTE ]
compulsive gambling typically seizes the lives of 1.5% to 2.5% of the adult population. That amounts to three to five times the number of people suffering from cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a despicable comparison!

People die of cancer (564,000+ this year alone) and are no longer in the comparison I guess.

If you are in remission you don't count either. There are well over 10 million Americans who have been or are being treated for cancer in the United States.

This is insane they are insinuating that gambling addiction is more prevalent than cancer in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fully agree. I find that statement particularly offensive and imagine that anyone who has personally dealt with and seen the effects of cancer would agree. Even if those numbers were true, a person's life is not "seized" by gambling like a cancer patient's life is seized by cancer. The attempt to make problem gambling sound worse than cancer is simply moronic.

Cubswin
11-20-2006, 12:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
including the multi-million dollar lobbyists at the PPA

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Their role is supposed to be a lobbying voice for poker players, and they collect millions of dollars for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are greatly overestimating the PPA's funds and resources at this point in time. As Berge has pointed out, there are limited resources and decisions have to be made as to where the available money would be best spent. While it would be nice to believe that the PPA has 2+ million on hand (125k X $20), the reality is there are significant acquisition and other overhead costs that defray this figure.

MiltonFriedman
11-20-2006, 11:09 AM
Cubs,

The main point was this Notice/Comment opening.

However, you miss the side points I was making re the PPA. It is not a matter of whether they have $1,000,000 or more in their funding, but rather their lack of focus on substantive opportunities in this campaign.

The PPA needs to focus its efforts, both for the players and to bolster its own political visibility.

1. The cost of their screening the Federal Register EVERY DAY is minimal, but essential to getting notice of relevant regulatory matters. The PPA, anointed by CardPlayer and PartyPoker, emegged as THE funded lobbying organization, for better or for worse. I maintain it would be MUCH better if it paid attention to the issues affecting the online games its putative memebership plays ....

If it maintains a focus on creating a tax/regulate environment, it is simply providing a service to the Harrahs/MGMs, et cetera ... not to an open market for poker consumers. WHAT IS its goal, to aid CardPlayer/MGM/Harrahs to grab market share for the birck & mortar brands or to provide representation for poker players' choices in an open market ?

2. If for NO other reason, the WTO comment angle is certainly worth pursuing as a felxing of numbers. All it takes is an EMAIL from the PPA membership to make the so-called 'poker vote" heard after the election. A good turn-out (say 5,000 comments) for a Notice/comment would be noticed and could be cited to show poker lobbying has staying power through the next election.

Whether the PPA has $1,000,000 and 125,000 members or $125,000 and 1,000 memebers does not excuse missing a Notice in the Federal Register about online gambling issues.

My real PPA concern is that they will be similarly asleep or serving someone else's interests when poker players need them to notice the UIGE Act Rega come up for Notice/Comment.

Neurotoxin
11-20-2006, 02:36 PM
Another fun fact is the idea that everyone in America who isn't a problem gambler is paying between $270 and $440 each due to theit drain on the economy. Thats about $100,000,000,000 a year if my math is correct. What's funny is in the NORC report in the "Kyl quick facts" it says the cost is only $5 billion a year. And that's for "imprisonment, divorce courts" etc. They just pull both numbers out of their asses im sure.

autobet
11-20-2006, 02:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are greatly overestimating the PPA's funds and resources at this point in time. As Berge has pointed out, there are limited resources and decisions have to be made as to where the available money would be best spent. While it would be nice to believe that the PPA has 2+ million on hand (125k X $20), the reality is there are significant acquisition and other overhead costs that defray this figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I joined through Party. I checked with the PPA. They told me I was a FREE member through Party.

So I joined for $40 as a paying member.

Cubswin
11-20-2006, 07:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
However, you miss the side points I was making re the PPA. It is not a matter of whether they have $1,000,000 or more in their funding, but rather their lack of focus on substantive opportunities in this campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your main point and agree that something could have been done. That being said, I also understand how something like that could have slipped through the crack. Many people here follow the day-to-day happenings and missed it as well. Did you know that this was on the agenda? Did you contact the PPA about this? This is truely a grassroots movement at this point in time and if we are to make any progress we need to bring these things up when they arise. Rather than looking for failures we need to insure they dont happen.

The point of my post was to clarify the misconception that everyone thinks the PPA has massive financial backing from the poker sites and tons of resources at its disposal. This is simply not the case. From my understanding they have a staff of 3 plus their contracted lobbyist whose job is to focus on federal issues. If something like this comes up and you think it might not be on the PPA's radar, let them know about it.

MiltonFriedman
11-21-2006, 06:12 PM
"their contracted lobbyist whose job is to focus on federal issues...."

Then, fire him. Checking the Federal Register EVERY day is one of the ways you need to check on "federal issues", especially since THAT is where the Regs' notices for UIGE Act regs will be posted.

No, I saw it after the fact, when I saw the Slate Article, read it and followed up the reference to the Federal Register in the article.