[schwza]

i have a few comments on the talking points.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The proposed regulations should be modified to clarify that they don’t cover games predominantly determined by skill, such as poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon. Section 5362(1)(a) of UIGEA defines a bet or wager as “the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance,…” “Subject to chance” can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but in a gambling context it should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance. Poker players compete, not against the house, but against each other, and the success of a player over any significant time interval is determined by that players’ skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

poker, backgammon, bridge (and i assume mahjong) are clearly games that are "subject to chance." chance certainly plays a part in those games, big or small, and by the bill's language those games included. you're suggesting a significant change to the regulations, and you need to provide justification for your assertion that "“Subject to chance” ... should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance."

basically you say that we should replace the bill's authors' language, "subject to chance," with much weaker language, "determined by chance" without saying why.

i think a better way to frame the talking points would be roll up the discussion of skill vs luck into point 5, and avoid discussing the "subject to chance" language as it's not very favorable to us. just stick with the case law that the wire act doesn't apply to poker. citations on some of these things would be useful too.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The regulators must define what is and isn’t “unlawful Internet gambling.” The federal and state laws governing Internet gambling are very ambiguous -- nearly all of them were written before the advent of the Internet, and it is not clear how they apply to Internet gaming. In the proposed rule, the regulators emphasize that it is not their intention to clarify this question, because to do so would require them to examine the laws of every state with respect to every gaming modality. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring every bank and payment system to do individually.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this is the strongest point and you should lead with this. it would also be worth mentioning the discrepancies between the DOJ's interpretation of gambling law with some of the case law that is out there, as this makes banks' jobs even harder.

[ QUOTE ]
3. The regulators should refrain from implementing the regulations until the U.S. resolves its international trade disputes. The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. This is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. Inasmuch as these regulations arguably make that situation worse, the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would make this section a bit more forceful. first, delete the first sentence, as it makes it sound too much like we're still in the middle of some dispute that could go either way when in reality we've already lost. then i'd rewrite the point as follows:

The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. these regulations bring us further out compliance by _______________ [not sure on details], and our noncompliance is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations and take steps to rebuilding its credibility in the international trade community as we encourage china and other nations to live up to their WTO obligations.