The Agencies request comment....

[DeadMoneyDad]

"The Agencies request comment" appears in the proposed rule over 20 times.

Following the thread convention, is there is interest, I can post the more relevant sections one at a time in this single topic header for discussion.

There are a number of issues covered by the PPA talking points in general that IMO could be re-enforced by specifically addressing each of these points as well as others.

Given the nature of the "deliberation" process from comment to adopting a final published rule, I feel there is value in this apporach. I've been in a number of these "process" meetings. Yes this is the Executive Branch, but even appointees' powers in this process are limited.

The fact that we are aporaching the end of the Bush Administration and more than likely the "feeling" that a political party change is more than possible, on or about the timeframe the final regulation is drafted increases our leverage in this process.

Just pushing out the 6 months proposed timeframe a few months could stall the process into a new administration.

Let me know,


D$D

[flight2q]

Yes, let's do this. Hopefully we will be able to do a very thorough job. We might even get extra time. The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness has posted a comment requesting a 90+ day extension to the comment period (comment 32). Could give us good opportunity to both develop more talking points and get the word out so lots of people are pushing the talking points. (Says the guy going on a 2-week vacation.)

[Uglyowl]

I will help in anyway I can. I do not have a law or political background, but I will do what I can.

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
I will help in anyway I can. I do not have a law or political background, but I will do what I can.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will help in anyway I can. I do not have a law or political background, but I will do what I can.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, thank you all.

I'll get on it this tomorrow. I was out gathering signatures this morning to get a candidate on the ballot here in VA. Man I miss getting out and chatting up strangers! What a blast even though it was pretty cold, for "us" here this morning.

Politics is 24/7 here but it seems this should be a very interesting cycle. The comments from the Dems was very enlightening, but that was the fun going into a blue area.

IMO Hillary is in real trouble. Some one suggested a Obama Richardson ticket, and that really came out of left field for me. As a GOPer that one IMO could fly, and would be really scary politically for "us".


D$D

[Uglyowl]

There was a passing exchange in the debate where Hillary mentioned that the current administration has "no respect for the trade organizations". The original question was about NAFTA, went on to touch on the WTO, etc. This wasn't poker related, but said alot to me.

[morgant]

Thanks DMD for bringing this issue to light. This comment period for the treasury regs is an important. It expires December 12th. I don’t believe it is a good forum for bitching about the substance of the UIGEA. That office doesn’t care. But it is a good place to tell them why their regulations will fail anyway. Or, if you have anything to do with banking/financial services, it’s a good place to say that six months is not long enough to get this thing figured out. Here is the link to look at the regs and all the comments on the regs

I just sent my comments in via snail mail. I posted them below:

Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System
20th Street and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20551


RE: Comments to Notice of Joint Proposed Rulemaking; Prohibition On Funding Of Unlawful Internet Gambling Docket Number R-1298

Dear Madam Secretary:

It is not your job to make legislation, only to enforce it. Keeping this in mind, I will not comment on the statutes in concept, only as applied. The problems with the regulations set forth by your office are numerous.

The first problem is legislation that is drafted in an overly broad or ambiguous manner is unenforceable. The UIGEA clearly falls into that category. Furthermore, as the UIGEA is only an enforcement mechanism, the statutes it seeks to enforce are clearly ambiguous with respect to most types of gaming.

An argument could be made that statutes leading up to the UIGEA clearly make betting on sports via Internet or telephone illegal. Even assuming that is the case, your proposed regulations will have the effect of blocking all transactions to companies domestic and abroad that offer legal forms of gaming in addition to sports betting. Only a cursory mention of this problem, with no method for resolution, is written in your office’s regulations.

Another problem is that your regulations set-up banking institutions to be policing agencies, therefore forcing them to interpret unclear law. One effect of the Patriot Act was to require specific identification before opening a banking account. This was a clear mandate to banking institutions, and they needed only follow specific instructions. Your instructions with respect to UIGEA enforcement lack specificity, one effect of which will be a lack of uniformity.

You propose the keeping of a “list” of businesses engaged in unlawful gambling. You indicate it should be kept by a government agency, but no mention of a specific agency is made. To which agency would this be assigned? Without the list, there will be a completely haphazard keeping of records and policies by each institution. With the list, the enforcement becomes only as good as the list keeper. This will require an entire department within a governmental agency. Considering it took your office a year to write up the proposed regs, what makes you think this department can be formed, trained, and effective within six months?

This concern applies not only to just the “list keepers,” but the entire process as well. It took a year for your office to study the legislation, then write the regulations. This, by comparison to implementation, is the easy part of the process. Software systems, verifiers, record keeping, algorithmic tools, and training all need to be conceptualized and built. Six months for this process is not reasonable. One to two years would be more appropriate.

With a one to two year timeframe, you must take into consideration proposed legislation currently before congress. HR 2140, a bill to study Internet Gambling, could have significant implications on these regulations. HR 2610, clarifying a skill gaming carve out, could complicate enforcement. HR 2046 and HR 2607 would nullify these issues completely and force a brand new set of regulations.

How can we possibly waste taxpayer dollars the way we are to “enforce” overly broad and ambiguous laws?

I do not envy the position of your office. You have no choice but to write regulations for unclear law. It is, however, within your power to withdraw these proposed regulations to wait for clear statutes. I wish you office the best with this incredibly difficult issue.

[Tuff_Fish]

Excellent post Morgant.

Folks, how about we take each of the previous poster's paragraphs and make them a separate comment. We (well, you, I am ignorant as a brick about this area) may be able to add a bit more to each section.

Just a thought.

Tuff

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent post Morgant.

Folks, how about we take each of the previous poster's paragraphs and make them a separate comment. We (well, you, I am ignorant as a brick about this area) may be able to add a bit more to each section.

Just a thought.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff and all,

Here is the reason for the suggested method, this is the first time comment is mentioned other than how to comment.

"Comments on all aspects of the proposed regulation are welcome; however, the Agencies are, in particular, seeking comment on the issues noted in the section-by-section analysis below."

Having been in these process meetings, this seemingly "shotgun" approach is valuable as all regulatory "schemes" are interdependent on a majority of all parts working together as a whole. Sometimes but not always a "golden BB" or single piece of buckshot from repeated blasts can kill the whole animal. In addition, the cumulative weight of these single small BB's becomes in effect a rifle shot of cannon sized proportion if directed by a group.

In a few minutes, I will post the first of 20 or so places where as the Agency directed are the self-identified "vital organs."


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

“The Agencies propose that the final regulations take effect six months after the joint final rules are published, and request comment on whether this period is reasonable. Commenters requesting a shorter period should explain why they believe payment system participants would be able to modify their policies and procedures, as required, in the shorter period. Similarly, commenters requesting a longer period should explain why the longer period would be necessary to comply with the regulations, particularly if the need for additional time is based on any system or software changes required to comply with the regulations.”

I suggest we take a dual approach to this one.

We press on one hand that the proposed rule is completely unworkable and should immediately be returned to Congress for revision at the Agencies’ recommendation.

However, if the Agencies are married to the idea of making it work to fulfill their Executive branch obligations to Congress, we throw as much sand in the gears to muck up the process until on or all of the following; the WTO saves our bacon, we get further legislative action from the PPA, and or a new Congress and Administration in November '08. IMO even a few months pushed the Administration into lame duck status and a majority of Appointees leave or go out on the campaign trail.

Well at least for starters.


D$D