|
|
#21
11-09-2007, 12:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
Hello Everyone,
I'd like to make a few points. First, as far as the date goes. It's supposed to be November 30th. However, that may not be the public date. Quite often the decision is given to the parties, but one of them must put it on the calendar of a general meeting before it can become public. They have general meetings every month, and they also have deadlines for getting stuff on the calendar of those meetings. If it is necessary to get this decision on the calendar before it can be made public AND if the deadline for the December meeting is later than November 30th, it may not become public until the January general meeting. Now, as to the original WTO opinion. Both the original panel and the appelat body decision found three US laws in violation of the GATS. These were the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act. Horse racing had nothing to do with the primary opinion. The only reason horse racing gets mentioned is because it was cited as one example of why the US's moral defense failed. They could have just as easily cited remote sports wagering which takes place in Nevada, or the many states that offer remote lottery wagering. The reason it keeps coming up is because that's how the US has tried to spin it. After they lost the Appellate Body decision, they had the nerve to actually claim they had won. Which brings me to my next point. I have been dealing with the media for over 10 years. Quite often they just regurgitate what they are fed. After the Applellate Body decision, I pleaded with a Las Vegas reporter to correctly report Antigua's victory. The US was proclaiming victory at the same time. (I think it's safe to say by their latest actions that they have finally admitted they lost.) Anyway, the reporter said they were going with. "Both sides proclaim victory." I said how can you say that, have you read the decision? She replied, "Well, the US is telling us they won." She didn't bother to read the decision, she just wanted everything spoon fed to her. She actually refused to read it when pressed. Any lawyer who understands trade law and has read all of the material in the Antigua case will tell you the Frank bill does not bring the US into compliance, not by a mile. Could it be amended? Yes. But it's not close as is. The sports opt out and the state opt outs are the two major items that make it non-compliant. This is a fact based on the WTO decisions. The only people spreading the word that the Frank bill would bring the US into compliance are Safe and Secure and their hired gun Mr. Matsukada (sp?) at Alston and Bird. Mr. Matsukada is NOT a lawyer. He holds his graduate degrees in Japanese history. He somehow had some sort of senior job at USTR and is using that to make himself some sort of expert on the decision. He is stupid or he is lying when he says the Frank bill brings the US into compliance. Why is he saying that? Because Safe and Secure and Alston and Bird are 100% backed by poker interests. Their backers (which I will not name right now) would like the Frank bill. It disgusts me that they feel they have to lie about the WTO implications rather than just backing the Frank bill on the merits. There are plenty of arguments they could make for poker and the Frank bill. They don't need to try and hijack the WTO decision. They are the ones putting out press releases that claim the Frank bill will bring the US into compliance and some media outlets are putting it out there. Once it's out there, others take it as fact. So don't believe everything you read. If any of you have ever been intimately involved with something t hat gets a lot of press coverage, you know what I mean. Bottom line is the US can't claim a moral aversion to some types of remote gambling while allowing others. 
|
|
#22
11-09-2007, 12:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
the Nov 30th date is pushed back to Dec 14th.
|
|
#23
11-09-2007, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
The December 14th date is related to the deadline for the "Withdraw of the commitment in the sector" negotiations.
November 30th is the date for the panel deciding the amount and type of sanctions Antigua can impose against the US. It hasn't changed.
|
|
#24
11-09-2007, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
Guess thats what i get for reading what reporters write. Youre right the gd coverage has been sloppy and careless by the press.
|
|
#25
11-09-2007, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
[ QUOTE ]
The December 14th date is related to the deadline for the "Withdraw of the commitment in the sector" negotiations. November 30th is the date for the panel deciding the amount and type of sanctions Antigua can impose against the US. It hasn't changed. [/ QUOTE ] Thank your for your posts on the subject in not only taking the time to post them, but both your candor and restraint. D$D
|
|
#26
11-09-2007, 01:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
Jay, I am an online poker player and I don't like the IGREA. I'm not sure that it is better than the present situation. Of course, I like Rep. Wexler's skill games exemption bill, but I realize that it does not comply with the WTO decision. You're right about the laziness of the press. I read the Appellate Body decision. Yes it frequently mentioned pari-mutual horse race betting as the example of domestic remote gambling. However, the decision stated that other examples likely existed, but Antiqua had not yet proved other examples. Clearly the appellate decision affirmed the panel's ruling that if the US permitted some type of domestic remote gambling, then it had to allow foreign firms to provide any form of remote gambling to the US market.
I did not realize that the public release of the decision may slip to January. I hope that it comes out sooner. If the WTO grants Antiqua its requested IP sanctions, then how long before they are implemented? I gather implementation would take some months and Antiqua will use the sanction to attempt to convince Congress to comply by legislation.
|
|
#27
11-09-2007, 05:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps no lobbyists in town are watching it more closely than the team at Black Swan LLC, a new lobbying enterprise that represents the Antigua Online Gaming Association, a group that first encouraged its government to bring the case to the WTO and the industry that could profit the most from the case..... [/ QUOTE ] Could someone clarify the lobbying rights foreign entities have? Why doesn't Stars and FT hire the baddest lobbying agencies in town?
|
|
#28
11-09-2007, 05:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
Thanks Jay for all the great info. I wish you continued success in your fight.
[ QUOTE ] Why is he saying that? Because Safe and Secure and Alston and Bird are 100% backed by poker interests. Their backers (which I will not name right now) would like the Frank bill. [/ QUOTE ] As a poker player whose main dog in this fight in the poker interests, this is very encouraging. On a larger level I hate obfuscation on all levels and I hope you win the larger fight, Jay.
|
|
#29
11-09-2007, 09:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Perhaps no lobbyists in town are watching it more closely than the team at Black Swan LLC, a new lobbying enterprise that represents the Antigua Online Gaming Association, a group that first encouraged its government to bring the case to the WTO and the industry that could profit the most from the case..... [/ QUOTE ] Could someone clarify the lobbying rights foreign entities have? Why doesn't Stars and FT hire the baddest lobbying agencies in town? [/ QUOTE ] They have. They also provide a good amount of both money and pros for the PPA. The fact that PS and FT (with others) have in effect help build an organization for the players is a step beyond. My complaint is "we the players" haven't done all we can with that tool. Most have sat back and waited for others to carry the water. The PPA currently has less than one out of thirty self identified poker players as its members, also less than one out of fifteen self identified on-line players. In "Field of Dreams" terms they've help build it, and we've come, some, but the players are not as invested enough yet IMO. According to the reports the money spent on fundraising has been almost equal to the amount taken in. So the freerolls are accounted in the budgets, at least the early ones. D$D
|
|
#30
11-09-2007, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Perhaps no lobbyists in town are watching it more closely than the team at Black Swan LLC, a new lobbying enterprise that represents the Antigua Online Gaming Association, a group that first encouraged its government to bring the case to the WTO and the industry that could profit the most from the case..... [/ QUOTE ] Could someone clarify the lobbying rights foreign entities have? Why doesn't Stars and FT hire the baddest lobbying agencies in town? [/ QUOTE ] They have. They also provide a good amount of both money and pros for the PPA. The fact that PS and FT (with others) have in effect help build an organization for the players is a step beyond. [/ QUOTE ] Is it the case that foreign companies do not have the same "lobbying rights" as domestic companies? Do you know the differences? Thanks.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
