[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, the proposed regs say that one of the reasons they are not taking a position on what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling is that it can depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the location of the site. This is correct and unassailable IMO. For example, the answer to the question "Is PokerStars operating illegally under federal law?" would require answers to many questions, such as where are they located, what games are available, what states are they operating in, and dozens of other questions, etc.

Explicitly stating in legislation that the legislation is not altering the legality/illegality of Internet gambling practices is the same thing as not defining unlawful Internet gambling, as least as to the "unlawful" part, which is what we are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA is recommending requesting a defininition of the term "unlawful Internet gambling" because creating the definition would take months if not years (especially if horse racing fights back with us), delaying implementation of the regs. The regs themselves state the difficulty of defining this. We benefit both in terms of the administration change and in getting extra time to pass pro-poker legislation. We can post 1,000 different ways to do it, or tell them to just do it, but they'll have to respond to all of them. Let's just be clear that we want poker excluded. They may or may not do this, but they won't do it if no one asks, so let's all get to writing. Thanks.

There's little risk in the regs defining UIG to include Internet poker. First of all, it isn't. Secondly (and most importantly), if they could have done that, they would have in the first place. After all, Treasury is part of the Executive branch, under President Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you this was all I asked for from the begining.



D$D