Antigua's WTO Case Getting Some Coverage

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, is there any way to get the PPA off its stance that the IGREA would solve US lack of compliance with the WTO Antiqua decision on remote gambling. Jay has repeatedly stated that this bill does not comply with the WTO decision in any manner.
What the PPA needs to press for is repeal of the UIGEA and exemption for online gambling from federal and state anti-gambling laws to comply with the WTO decision. Or the PPA can just opine that Congress needs to comply with the WTO decision.
I'm sorry, but every time I read that the IGREA is an act to comply with the WTO decision, I just cringe about the ignorance of our press and our politicians. At least the PPA does not have to join them.
BTW, Skall, a very good explanation of the WTO ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will discuss this in detail with John Pappas.

IGREA can be modified to comply with the WTO decision. Frank has repeatedly said he'd love to do so, inlcuding at the June 8 hearing. His bill is what it is because that's all he could do and keep it in the House Financial Services Committee. I don't know if it will be amended for this, but it can be, especially with Rep. Conyers generally on board (I write "generally" because he's cosponsoring the Wexler bill, but isn't yet cosponsoring IGREA). Also, I realize Jay has his opinion, and I respect it, but there are other opinions, as you saw in the two articles posted by Bryan.

[JPFisher55]

TE, trust Jay. He knows Antiqua's position which the WTO has always upheld.
The IGREA is a bill designed by Rep. Franks to appeal to Democrats who love to regulate everything. Which is better than Republicans, in this case, who love to ban anything that they find immoral. Without the WTO, decision I guess it would be the best that we could pass. So I don't blame Rep. Franks for pushing it. But with the WTO decision, a better bill is possible, which these articles illustrate.
The IGREA would need lots of amendment to comply with the WTO decision. States and sports leagues could not be able to opt out of the law. The law could only apply to US based online gambling providers, not to foreign based providers or foreign based ewallets. It would be easier to start over by repealing the UIGEA, exempting online gambling from all federal and state gambling laws and then adopting some regulatory and taxation system only for domestic providers of online gambling services. To mean anything this system would have to be competitive with foreign systems, which even the new UK's system is not.
I am just asking that the PPA show some intelligence on this matter. Opinion by journalists and politicians who have not researched this matter or read the WTO decisions should not be cited by the PPA as valid opinions. Otherwise the PPA will be just like all the dumb environmentalist groups who push the global warming crap or the idiocy that prevents drilling for oil in Alaska or the gulf coast. The minute that the PPA looks like one of those groups I am out.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, trust Jay. He knows Antiqua's position which the WTO has always upheld.
The IGREA is a bill designed by Rep. Franks to appeal to Democrats who love to regulate everything. Which is better than Republicans, ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I don't claim to be an expert on this. I certainly respect Jay and his opinion, but that doesn't make it fact. It does constitute a well-informed opinion. Still, Antigua has clearly and often stated that they would accept many compromises. This could conceivably end with the U.S. opening part of its online gaming market and paying damages for what wasn't permitted. I will say the PPA has more than the opinions of journalists to go by on this.

Foreign companies could easily subject themselves to U.S. law via a number of ways. I believe this will be a requirement (though I personally wish it weren't) to ensure that cash flows of large amounts can be tracked, age verification takes place, and that opt-out lists are created.

[ QUOTE ]
States and sports leagues could not be able to opt out of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay says this, but that doesn't make it so. The original findings were based only on what's allowed nationally (interstate remote horserace wagering). The truth is that the U.S. would probably pay any amount in damages before requiring Utah to allow Internet sports betting, both because the sports' lobbies are strong and because of the simple matter of sovereignty. The U.S. already demonstrated this willingness by withdrawing from the gaming sector of GATS.

I. Nelson Rose has a good article (the one linked above by D$D): http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/...mp;sort=author

Hopefully we can use this to find something acceptable to Congress. This something would certainly include poker.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I have a suggestion. The PPA ought to encourage its members to email the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to contest the UIGEA and other anti-online gambling laws. In addition, the letter should state that if Antiqua is granted the relief from its IP sanctions then the member will protest by refraining from purchasing domestic DVD music or attending movies and instead acquire them on DVD's issued by a Antiqua based entity until Congress complies with the WTO decision by repeal of the UIGEA and exemption of all online gambling from all state and federal gambling laws. Please note that no member should threaten to distribute any such music or movies but only purchase such DVD's for personal use. Distribution would likely violate US copyright laws. Although the lawsuits by the Recording Industry Association of America against persons who downloaded music from Napster etc. and distributed the files to other persons would have been greatly complicated if the person had legally acquired the files under International (WTO) laws and treaties.
I suggest that the PPA draft a sample letter on these guidelines. The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I have a suggestion. The PPA ought to encourage its members to email the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to contest the UIGEA and other anti-online gambling laws. In addition, the letter should state that if Antiqua is granted the relief from its IP sanctions then the member will protest by refraining from purchasing domestic DVD music or attending movies and instead acquire them on DVD's issued by a Antiqua based entity until Congress complies with the WTO decision by repeal of the UIGEA and exemption of all online gambling from all state and federal gambling laws. Please note that no member should threaten to distribute any such music or movies but only purchase such DVD's for personal use. Distribution would likely violate US copyright laws. Although the lawsuits by the Recording Industry Association of America against persons who downloaded music from Napster etc. and distributed the files to other persons would have been greatly complicated if the person had legally acquired the files under International (WTO) laws and treaties.
I suggest that the PPA draft a sample letter on these guidelines. The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Writing to both organizations was an action item on my Fight for Online Poker thread for a long time. I wrote to both. Your ideas expand on that, which sounds good to me for us to do. I'll mention this to Pappas to see if there's anything we should do here.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I have a suggestion. The PPA ought to encourage its members to email the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to contest the UIGEA and other anti-online gambling laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better yet why haven't our lobbyists talked to theirs?

If "our" people feel their "people" need a letter writing campaign to help push the relationship fine. Let's work hard but smart....


D$D

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon my ignorance, but since the WTO will make its decision on the 30th (or earlier), why have the US and all the WTO claimants set their deadline for Dec 14th? Would the WTO decision not go into effect until Dec 14th if there was no agreement reached?

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon my ignorance, but since the WTO will make its decision on the 30th (or earlier), why have the US and all the WTO claimants set their deadline for Dec 14th? Would the WTO decision not go into effect until Dec 14th if there was no agreement reached?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is for compensation for US withdrawal of its online gambling commitments. The Nov. 30 deadline is for dollar amount of sanctions, and IP sanctions or not, to Antiqua on its original case against US for discriminatory practices in online gambling.
They are two different matters. The former involves EU, Canada, India, Macau, Costa Rica and one other nation, plus Antiqua. The latter case only involves Antiqua.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon my ignorance, but since the WTO will make its decision on the 30th (or earlier), why have the US and all the WTO claimants set their deadline for Dec 14th? Would the WTO decision not go into effect until Dec 14th if there was no agreement reached?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is for compensation for US withdrawal of its online gambling commitments. The Nov. 30 deadline is for dollar amount of sanctions, and IP sanctions or not, to Antiqua on its original case against US for discriminatory practices in online gambling.
They are two different matters. The former involves EU, Canada, India, Macau, Costa Rica and one other nation, plus Antiqua. The latter case only involves Antiqua.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my heart I really wish this was the magic bullet for poker in the US. But even a casual knowledge of the history of the WTO will inform one that trade disputes are like an onion with layers and layers of over lapping agreements and disputes.

The move to try to stick to some established reasonable time frames is a new effort for the WTO. History shows that pre-Uruguay, that over 2/3 of the cases never reach the full pannel process and many disputes last over decades.

The US played a role in advancing the case for quicker and "cleaner" dispute resolution and now finds itself "hanging by a rope of its own making."

But as much as the US needs the rest of the world, the WTO needs to keep the majors at the table, and doesn't want a major "taking it's ball and bat and going home."

As many find after living in DC for any time, when it comes to government logic, reason, and winning because you are right have little place in the discussion let alone pre-eminence.

So the WTO is grist for the mill and potentially a useful lever in this battle to move the Hill. But I would hate for anyone to get their hearts crushed when logic and reason do not prevail.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

D$D, I agree with you. I put the odds of the WTO granting Antiqua its requested IP sanction at only 50%. The other 50% is that the WTO grants some low monetary relief and no meaningful sanctions. In the latter event, I expect Antiqua and most small-medium size members to leave the WTO. In addition, China will ignore anything that the WTO does in any trade dispute between it and US, but it might anyway.
In short, the WTO is in trouble. If it grants Antiqua its requested sanction, then it risks losing the US. If it doesn't then it becomes meaningless to most of its members.
Of course, the iMEGA and BetOnSports case might lead to a favorable outcome, but the appeals in those cases will take quite a while.
I fear that this is the worst time for the disintregation of the WTO. But the morons in the Bush Administration don't seem to get it. We can thank the Bush administration for causing this dilemna. George W. Bush is the reason that I am a former Republican.