[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me to my kids: "Maybe."
Kids: "Does that mean yes?"
Me: "It means I don't know yet."
Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?"
Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..."
Kids: "Maybe works."

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA: "But we have to know RIGHT NOW!"
Regulators: "Then the answer is NO, and that's final."

It's nothing short of insanity to think that the regulators won't go for the broadest (safest) definition of which forms of online gambling are unlawful.

The PPA might just succeed in getting the rest of the poker sites cut off from the US. Good job, guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you a lot of effort was put into generating the points. While it may seem wonderful to have UIG undefined, the regs put banks in the position of either overblocking or of having to prove allowed transactions are "lawful". Also, the reg authors admitted they were unable to define UIG. Given this admission, it seems we could gain by pushing them in this area. There are other pro-poker reasons to support a definition as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reg writers also admitted they couldn't design a governmental system without worring about our pesky due process rights. Why not push there?

In the reg process the best you can hope for is a comment burried in the review portion that the Agencies don't write laws therefore they can not define for Congress or the Courts what is legal or illegal.

It is a waste of time IMO.


D$D