PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points

[superpokermon]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

#1 has the same problem; you and I may think this, but, if pressed, the regulators could very well come to the exact opposite conclusion.

#3 and, to a lesser extent, #5, are the arguments that should be focused on. Don't ask the regulation drafters to come up with their own interpretations; instead, delay them and/or point them to existing case law. This is a much, much better approach than relying on people who likely know nothing about poker to decide whether it's a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are good points, and I urge the PPA to take these points into consideration and revise the talking points. The regs, as currently written are not that strong. Asking for things such as clear definitions could cause them to be made stronger. The regs are fairly weak right now, let's not encourage the DOT to fix them so they actually mean something.

[Skallagrim]

OK, Time to truly coordinate our comments so they are in the best interests of online poker players. I am posting here first, but will also post this at the PPA website. For further understanding of the proposed regulations, people should also check out I. Nelson Rose's article at CompatiblePoker's site:

http://www.compatiblepoker.com/propo...review.cms.htm

My thoughts in general are still that the greatest threat we face is bank blocking our (legal) transactions because that has no legal downside for them but there are clear risks if they let a"bad" one through. I doubt our transactions are enough to cause them financial loss sufficient to offset the risk. I see the best solution as insuring that our e-wallet transfers are not blocked (though I really hope some company with better service than epassporte comes along).

Specifically, I suggest the following differences with the PPA's proposed comments:

1) I think there is no way we are going to get the regulation writers to declare poker is a game of skill and thus not covered. The UIGEA language the PPA quotes here is irrelevant to the discussion, however, because this definition of gambling has no legal use under the UIGEA. If an already existing State law (we already know there is no such Federal law) makes poker gambling, then the UIGEA requires poker transactions from that state to be blocked regardless of any interpretation of "subject to chance."

It is, however, important to emphasize that the UIGEA clearly does not contemplate blocking transactions for EVERY game played for money on the internet. Certain games are obviously not gambling (chess), certain ones are in a grey area (poker, backgammon, bridge, mahjong) and others clearly are gambling (sports betting, slots). Point 1 should therefore emphasize how important it is to make sure legal gaming transactions are not blocked.

2) I agree that it will most likely be bad for us if the regulators are required to define "unlawful internet gambling." And I also believe their reluctance to do this is very strong. Thus I disagree with this point most strongly. Our comments should try to turn this to our advantage. If they feel it is too difficult for them, a body of lawyers in the Federal Government, to do, then of course it is also too difficult for banks to do. We should emphasize, therefore, that any bank that truly wants to correctly block illegal transactions while not blocking legal transactions will have to expend far more time and money to have "correct" policies than they estimate. The UIGEA specifically allows the regs to exclude the regulations from requiring practices that are too burdensome and costly. The push then should be for a bank policy that only requires blocking of only that gambling that is clearly illegal in all the US - sportsbetting and casino games. In states that have other specific laws about internet gambling, a bank operating in those states can/should also have a blocking policy in accord with that state's law. Banks should not have to know or interpret vague laws or laws of other states (again to costly).

3) I have no problem with this point, though I doubt it will make much difference to these particular bureaucrats.

4) Personal privacy is an issue, and reviewing every individual's transactions is again requiring too much. The regs should only focus on where the transaction is directed, not where it came from - in other words, its too much work and way to invasive to be asking customers where the money is going, its not too much to ask the far smaller number of recipients what it will be used for (of course if the recipient is an offshore bank or e-wallet they may not say, they have to comply with other countries rules, not ours).

5) This really a repeat of #1. Again, I just dont see much sympathy for poker coming from these guys. But sympathy for all sorts of legal businesses and the banks, I do expect.

Bottom line, the key is to get these guys to allow the banks to set simple, unambiguous policies as to whats allowed or not (these policies should then stay away from poker - in most states - because poker laws are the pinnacle of ambiguity). Since there is a lot of gray area out there, the regs should specify that a bank policy which blocks transactions to THE ACCOUNTS OF sportsbetting and casino sites is sufficient compliance at the Federal level, and which otherwise comports with any unambiguous state law of the state the bank is operating in is sufficient at the state level.

This I think (though please try and persuade me otherwise) is the best we can get and, hopefully, will still allow unrestricted transfers to e-wallets/foreign banks (because you know some of them will stay open to us poker players despite US pressure).

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Besides my previous posted comments, I submitted one about the difficulty of a US bank dealing with its correspondent foreign bank when the US bank attempts to block an UIG transaction from the foreign bank. I urged the regulators to exempt cross border transactions on the grounds that the potential cost to US banks made applying the UIGEA to cross border transactions not feasible.

[Halstad]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I think there is a much greater chance they throw everything under "unlawful gambling" instead of saying everything but poker is "unlawful."

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
2) I agree that it will most likely be bad for us if the regulators are required to define "unlawful internet gambling."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is extremely important. We really do not give the regulators the opportunity to define unlawful internet gaming. They will almost certainly lump poker in with everything else.

At worst, keep the status quo in regards to what constitutes unlawful internet gaming, which is a very undefined murky area. At best, get the Wexler bill through and have poker recognized as a "skill game".

[JPFisher55]

I am in the minority on the definition issue. If the regulators did define online poker to be UIG, then an Action for Declaratory Judgment would be easier to bring because standing and ripeness issues would not exist. In addition, this definition is contrary to established federal case law.
The vague definition may cause banks to overblock and make such litigation more difficult to bring in federal court.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a little bit loose, but at the same time, if I can offer an idea or two, you are more than welcome to it:

To begin, I'm sorry if my statement was too brash. OBVIOUSLY, we should call our congressmen and all other pertinent parties in support of online poker. However, we should not tend to overvalue letters to our congressman and, at the same time, undervalue the institutions that really get things done: lobbyists and/or large money institutions.


Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I guess I'd say this isn't about letter writing. We do have lobbyists. They need our letters to support their efforts. Also, my OP doesn't mention writing to Congress at all....it's about commenting on the UIGEA regs, which is an extremely important topic right now. Maybe we can start a new thread on your topic if you like. Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
basically you say that we should replace the bill's authors' language, "subject to chance," with much weaker language, "determined by chance" without saying why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the comments. I guess I should clarify that these are not my talking points...these are the PPA's.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand on the reasons behind why? Is it something along the lines of what JPFisher said? Thanks [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]