 to stop. Excellent. And we're good to go. All right. Good morning, everyone. Today is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission for a public meeting. We're holding this meeting virtually, so I'll do a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. And good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. And good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Morning, Madam Chair and everyone. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I am here. Commissioner Hill, are you in the office? Yes, I am. So the world's really been that good. Excellent. All right. We're going to get started calling the meeting public meeting number 438. I'm going to turn right to Executive Director Wells. Yes, so as an update to the commissioners, true to their word, DGC has submitted their request for official request for temporary license, as well as their $1 million fee. I confirmed this morning that the fee was confirmed to have gone through yesterday. In addition, I have written up the memo. I've submitted it to you directly, and I think that's going to go in the packet whenever we can get that up because that just happened this morning. So there is official record that as the Executive Director, I am then making a determination that they are a qualified gaming entity. So as such, they have fulfilled all the requirements in order to receive a temporary license. Obviously, they will still be needing their operation certificate in order to go live. But the request is that this morning, the commissioners approved their temporary license to go forward. I can add that they're looking for a start date of the first quarter in January 2024. I spoke to them this morning. Thank you. Thank you. Commissions, do you have questions for Executive Director Wells or Director Bann? Okay. So you're going to update the public packet and you will need a vote this morning. So do I have a motion? Yes, Madam Chair. I would, excuse me, I pursuant to GLL, GL Chapter 29 and Section 6C2 and 205 CMR 219. I move that the commission issue a temporary sports wagering license to Digital Gaming Corporation doing business as Betway and authorize Digital Gaming Corporation to conduct sports wagering for the period of one year under a temporary license or until a final determination on its operator's license application is made. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? I just want to note that thank you again for Mr. Erlick and team coming in at our last public meeting to clarify and thank you for finalizing this, Karen. All right. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. So 5-0. Thanks. Excellent work done. Karen, do you have anything else for us today? Nothing this morning. Okay. So we're going to turn right to a slew of regulations that I know we have some time issues on. So turn to Caitlin Monaghan, Deputy General Counsel. Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to tee these up briefly before the team takes over. As you know, we received some additional comments just this morning. So we're going to propose a slightly amended process for moving through these. And that is that the team will address each of the regs as it was intending to address them today, which will include a review of all the comments we received up until this morning. By tomorrow's meeting, we will be able to process and review the comments so we can bring up any new comments tomorrow. And we'd ask that votes be held until tomorrow so that we can make sure that the commission sees and is able to review and discuss all the comments that we received on these regs. So if that is, if the commission's amenable to that process, we can move forward starting with 254. Commissioners, are you all set with that? That makes sense to me. Okay. All right. Hearing no objections, let's proceed. So we're going to move item number three, E on our agenda up to the first aid spot because we have Dave Mackey from Anderson and Krieger and he has a scheduling challenge. So good morning, Dave. Morning. So let me just very briefly describe 254, the regulation governing the temporary prohibition from sports wagering and describe some of the redlined edits that you've seen in your packet. Dave, Dave, can I just interrupt you so that we can get on? We are starting now closer to the end of the packet. Page 211, Madam Chair. Oh, sorry. Okay. Thank you so much. Sorry about that, Dave. Madam Chair and commissioners, apologies for the interruption. I did circulate also an updated red line to you yesterday that is not part of the packet that would be attached to the meeting invite that has some additional red lines. I can share it on the screen as we discuss if that's helpful or I can send it to you again right now if that would be more helpful. You could do that. And then Trudy, if you could also forward it to me to the account that I'm using, that would be great. So I can just have easy access, but otherwise we'll take it right. We'll take it all way in all ways. Thank you, Carrie, for that update. Okay. Very thank you. I do have that now. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So are the commissioners able to see the redlined edits? Okay, great. Because I can generally describe what the regulation does and then describe some of the edits that we made following the discussion we previously had about the regulation and in response to the comments that we received up to those that we received this morning. So again, the temporary prohibition from sports wagering is sort of the less, it's somewhat more flexible tool than the voluntary self-exclusion. The temporary prohibition is what it is. A patron can elect upon honestly as soon as they enroll on a platform to select a period of time that they want to be prohibited from sports wagering. The initial version of this that we had presented previously had specified durations that the temporary prohibition could apply to. I think it was 72 hours a week, two weeks in a month if I'm not mistaken. And in response to the discussion that we had, as well as a number of comments, the regulation has been revised to really allow individuals to elect the period of time for temporary prohibition that's being offered by licensees. That was a sort of unanimous set of comments that we received that we should be flexible in terms of you're working with patrons and licensees and allowing a period of temporary prohibition that the patrons select as opposed to specifying that has to be one of four options. So again, a patron can elect this temporary prohibition. Patrons have to be notified upon enrollment that this option is available at any time during, really at any time while they're enrolled, they can elect this temporary prohibition period, they can elect to renew the temporary prohibition period or lengthen the temporary prohibition really at any period of time. So it's quite flexible that way. There was extended discussion previously about an issue of notification whether patrons should be notified as the temporary prohibition period was scheduled to conclude. We had a lot of discussion about that, and we got a lot of comments about that. The general gist of the comments was that the notification before the termination of the temporary prohibition period was not necessarily a good idea because it could create a sense of anticipation or a sense of excitement on the part of the patron that the temporary prohibition period was ending and that they didn't want to get geared up again to begin to begin sports wagering and that instead of that notification that temporary prohibition period should simply be allowed to end. So you'll see in the red line that we've taken out the references to notification that the temporary prohibition period was ending. The other significant change you're going to see in 250-405 is the sanctions provision to the previous 250-405. Okay, before we shift off from that, I just noticed one suggested change on 250-403-1. It says an individual shall select a temporary prohibition period. I think you are may. Oh, that we did make that. Then I'm not seeing an updated version, that's all. Oh, I wonder if you're here. I'll share the updated one, so. Yeah, that may make sense because we noted that. Thank you. It's probably because I'm getting up. Yeah, there we go. Excellent, so thank you. Okay. Well, and then we think alike. On the same page on that when we agree, we think alike. So that I must not quite have the right updated packet. And so I know that Trudy's probably listening if she could just send that to me, that I'm using my second screen or to my other account. Thanks. Okay. I thought I had the most updated one, but there's been some changes. That makes great sense then. Thank you. Yes, it came to us via carry yesterday afternoon. If that helps you. No, just sent it to Trudy again. So yeah, I'm sure she probably sent it around. I just probably I just probably searched them. It's on me guys. Thank you. So two other issues that we addressed. We took out 254.254.05 the sanctions provision because it's now adequately covered by 232. 232 include violations of 254. So that seemed redundant. And then the last change we made is in the previous version. And you can see this in 254.021. We had initially drafted the regulation such that during the temporary prohibition period individuals wouldn't be able to access their accounts, but we received some thoughtful comments that actually customers should be able to access the accounts not to place a wager, but at least to, you know, if they want to withdraw the funds that are in their account or they want to review their sports wagering history or they want to extend the cooling off period or they want to, you know, investigate and enroll in other play management options. They can access the account. So we made this more specifically. You cannot make deposits and you can't place a wager, but you could access your account for these other purposes. So I think that covers, you know, the general gist of the rule and the changes that we made since the last meeting, you know, based on the discussion and based on the comments. But, you know, carry your mark, please weigh in, if I've missed something here. And obviously happy to take questions. Thanks, Dave, if I may, I don't believe the, well, the notification option for voluntary notification has been removed from the regulation. I don't believe that that issue is resolved. So I think Director Vandalin is referring to this. We're taking that out in many ways. We were suspending that. And then Mark, we were considering a having a round table of some sorts on that issue. Is that what you were referring to when you say not resolved? Yeah, it's not not resolved as in I think that there should be, as you recommended, Madam Chair, a round table discussion and a determination about whether or not that should be, I guess, at this point amended and added back in. Right. And so I think what we do have now, Mark, that we didn't have before these comments, I'm not sure when all the comments have come coming in. That's one thing I would love. I'd love to have dates on the comments so that we kind of have a sense of timing. So Mark, I know that we moved a meeting to discuss the round table. I don't think we're taking that off the table at this time. Director Vandalin has been quite invested in thinking about this issue of notification and whether he, in fact, would argue for its support. And I want to honor that. So at this time though, Mark, I think the recommendations are for them to be, that issue, that matter to be struck and we can reintroduce as you're comfortable. Does that make sense? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thank you. Everybody comfortable with that, commissioners? My only question for Mark is, given that we have this March 10th date, are you comfortable with what's remaining in the reg in terms of launching on the 10th? Understanding that we're going to be circling back for tweaking this. Are you comfortable with it as it reads? Yes, I am comfortable. Okay. And Commissioner Brown, I think that you recall the reason why probably Director Vandalin is comfortable too is because they're, even if on a policy level, we decided to. Right. No, there are technological challenges to this as well. I understand. That's what I was going to say. I just wanted to make sure he was comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be any notifications as written. Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, I absolutely support temporary prohibition. I think it should be there from day one. I think that as a responsible gaming tool that as it's being used kind of across the country, I think that there are ways in which it can be enhanced notifications. For example, I support exploring that further, recognizing that if the commission does adopt that there will be some development time and some process in order to get up to speed for the operators to be able to offer that. Right. And so I was going to finish my sentence. I think we had already recognized that there was going to be a suspension of some sort anyway, because of the technology count. So, okay. Everybody, any further questions? I do have a question, Madam Chair. I first to comment, I found a couple typos that I'll get to Caitlin later today, but I did have a substantive question about 250402 subsection 3C. It says an individual's attempted sports wager may be rejected or if placed may be voided or canceled. I'm wondering if that should be a show. You know, I heard that I had the right packet. That was just a single piece. So now I'm going back to my big packet. So I'm going to have to play a little bit of catch up. I'm sorry. Everybody again. So it was just that particular rag that. So I'm going into the reg missioner skinner getting caught up. My apologies. Let's see. And so again, the number mission I'm at 250402 subsection 3C. 3C. Okay. I've got it in front of me now. And so we outright in our regulations prohibit a patron from being able to place a wager. And so if that happens, I think it's reasonable to adjust that language. I mean, I think it's reasonable to adjust the language from a may to a shell in terms of, you know, the wager being voided or canceled. Right. There's no option to, you know, there's no option. We don't, we don't leave an option to have the operator make a different decision. Is that, is that, does that reflect what we do in our other practice? I think the other voluntary self exclusion, right? We don't have the cooling off at the VSE or exclusion. That's, that's how we do it, right? That's correct. We have voluntary self exclusion. And there's no certain circumstance in which the individual should be able to place a wager. And so I think changing from may to shall commissioner Skinner is, is right. But yeah, I agree. I think that's an excellent suggestion because we wouldn't, you know, it's plain that we're not, you know, if an operator enabled a patron who is subject to the temporary prohibition to actually place a wager, it would be a violation of this reg. And we wouldn't want them to be able to read this as somehow qualifying that obligation in some way. So I think that's Are you suggesting commissioner, Brian, commissioner Skinner that both shell, both mays be turned to shells? Yes. I'm also wondering whether we'll be going through the comments that were not accepted and recommended to be incorporated into this. Thank you, commissioner Skinner. I absolutely think we should go through the all of the comments even the ones that were accepted. Commissioner Skinner, because this is our chance to really think about them. I agree. Thank you. Were there any other comments, commissioners on the, the revised version of 554 that Kerry sent? Okay. So I don't have any comments, madam chair. Thank you, commissioner Hill. If you all be patient with me, my apologies. I'm switching now again. Let's just see a little challenge here. Once I'm in this packet again. Once I'm in this packet, this will be the packet for the rest of the day, right? Thank you everyone for your patience. Okay. So now we are going to look at the comments, Dave. And those are on which page? Starting again. It would be in a better position to answer that question. Those are up until this morning. That's right, Dave. They begin on page 216 of the packet. Thank you. All right. Why don't we start going to that piece? So is that the, does that begin with the bet MGM comment? I just want to make sure I'm looking at the right. Yes, the 254.02. Okay. That one, right, Dave? Yeah. So this, we have made a proposed change to the regulation based on these first comments from that MGM. This relates to initially we had it set up so that a patron couldn't access their account during the temporary prohibition period. And the comments we got reflected that actually there are some situations where a patron might want to be able to access their account, not to place a major, but to, you know, first of all, potentially just pull, pull money out of their account or to extend the temporary prohibition period or to, you know, look at some of the other, you know, look at and potentially take advantage of some of the other play management tools. So that's the, the, the reaction to the, the comments on the first page there. I'm going to ask that you just interrupt, Dave, if you have any comment on the comments. Okay. We're going to go through them all. Please. Go right ahead, Dave. So the comment, if no comments on that, the comment beginning on the next page. The comment was for digital. Recommendation of 72 hours up to a year. I think this is was a reaction to the four, four or five, I think specified time periods that we had initially proposed that the cooling off period relate to. And instead we've made it, you know, basically more flexible. And, you know, I think accommodating the licensees desire to, you know, work with the flexibility that they have, that they offer in connection with their own cooling off periods. So, you know, we've addressed that we haven't limited it to 72 hours up to a year. We've basically said, you know, it is, it can be a period of time offered by the licensee and accepted by the patron. So we've made it, you know, is flexible. It's really as flexible as we can make it. We haven't specified any particular period of time. So the commission is helping me. Sorry. We've got a little technical trouble. It can continue. I'm going to show you all set with that one. Thanks, Dave. Next comment relates to really is relates to the notification provision. At the bottom of the page there, you can see the comment I'm concerned that reaching out to notify the player that their cooling off is expiring could have the unintended consequence of getting the player excited to gamble again. And I think in, you know, reaction to that comment and other similar comments we've, again, at least for now, opted to take the notification requirement out. Obviously subject to the process that Mark was describing where we'll have, you know, a roundtable discussion about whether the positives of the notification outweigh the potential unintended consequence that's identified here. So the next one I'm looking at 254.031 now, which is that MGM comment about the temporary prohibition being for a minimum period of 72 hours. On the theory that that aligns with what most other jurisdictions are doing, though, the bed MGM comment acknowledges that there is a jurisdiction in Maryland, which has a shorter minimum period. The reg is drafted, doesn't have a minimum period. And again, subject to discussion, but we've opted to keep it as flexible as we can. So just to be clear on that, Dave, the way that by striking the language all together, we're leaving it that the operators have to provide a cooling off period, but we're leaving it to their applications and their processes as to what it is. And it ranges from, I think we saw the 72 hours to 365 days. Correct. For now. With the exception of, you know, there's one jurisdiction in Maryland that says it can be a day. I think I'm two a year, but most are 72 hours. So any operators who are in Maryland have to have an application allowed for the 24 hours? Yes. The next comment, extended comment on 254.033 again, really picks up the concerns about the potential downsides of prior notification of the end of the cooling off period that it might in fact excite people to get going on sports wagering again. It also would require the licensee to reach out to the customer again, which could be viewed as sort of a marketing incentive to get back on the platform and start sports wagering again. You know, the comments we've gotten seem unbalanced to suggest that that downside would outweigh the positives of prior notification. Before we get too far ahead, can we go back to that MGM's comment regarding the 72 hour duration for the cooling off period? It's on page 217 of the packet. There's a comment within that set of comments from that MGM that talks about. Well, so I'll just read it. For retail, it's like the third paragraph down from that page. It says for retail without card swipes and requiring the identification of each player prior to placing a wager, I'm not sure how we would administer a cool off period with such short time frames. And my question, I mean, it's not directly related to this comment, but it got me thinking about whether if a patron is on a cooling off period within the app, could they still go to a retail operator to place a wager so as to circumvent that cooling off period? And if so, and I don't know if you're the right person to answer this, Dave, and I'm sorry if I'm misdirecting the question, but to my fellow commissioners, if the answer to that is yes, I'm wondering if we should consider whether there are any guardrails to put in place so that we could mitigate any effect of that. I'll let me answer with my understanding, but obviously I absolutely defer to others who understand the technology better than I do. Initially, when we wrote this, I believe we were including kiosks along with the digital applications and we eliminated the reference to kiosks because the technological challenge is posed by that. So I think you appropriately identify an issue about whether it's technically possible to move the temperate prohibition, the cooling off period, and have that apply basically to any of the manners in which you might engage in sports wager. Yeah, I think an operator is only required to collect the personally identifying information if it's over a certain amount. And so just raising that for possibly future consideration, I don't know what we do with it at this point, but it's definitely something to continue to chew on. Can you put that in the parking lot, Commissioner Skinner, and remember for further policy discussion? For the round table, it's right now when, thank you, I don't want to forget it. Okay, so you were back on, you might have skipped over fanatics or did I miss that, Dave? That was just, I think it was the same just, I just don't want to. Oh, this is the duration requirement? Yeah, I think so. Yeah, same thing, but the idea there, they're suggesting, yeah, they're suggesting 72 hours, three days to 364 days. And again, I think this was pushed back to the four specified time periods that we had initially drafted. As I say, we've gone, we've eliminated any reference to a specific time period and tried to make this as flexible as we can. So you had gotten through pens, I think? Yeah, I think that's right. The pen and the win bet comment, again, a lot of this is related to the concerns about notification reaching out to patrons during the cooling off period before it expires and the concerns that might actually incite additional sports wagering that might not be in the interest of responsible gaming. And we've taken that out. I think there's a comment about proposing to remove, in 2505, the words recklessly or reckless wording, but we've eliminated 2505 from the version of the regulation. And it's now picked up in 232, the discipline sanction rules. So I think that we've addressed that. And then the last comment from the private citizen relates to whether or not the cooling off period could be administered. Honestly, I think it would be administered by the commission in such a way that if a patron opted for the cooling off period, it would apply to all of the licensees that are engaged in sports wagering and not just to a particular account. Is that how it was going to work, Mark? Or was it going to be that if you had a few platforms that would only apply to the platform where you addressed it, right? Yeah, there's a challenge of having it be administered the way that this individual suggests. If we want to have it take effect immediately, it would require it to be operator-based. If we wish to have it administered by the commission, there is that lag time between when an individual enrolls and when the information is collected and disseminated. So it's probably not insurmountable, but it's a significant technical, logistical issue of having it take effect immediately, which I think is what is ultimately more important. Volunteer self-exclusion obviously applies across all operators should individual enroll. So we can put that issue too in our future discussion, Mark. But I think, Dave, that is the distinct difference between the BSE and this cooling off period. Yeah, I think the potentially short duration of the cooling off period makes a much more significant technical challenge than the BSE program, which is longer in turn, provide more time for it to apply to all operators. And Dave, when you're going through the comments to O5, is there any cross-reference to the discipline regs to see if there's any relevance to this commentary? Because we're striking O5 because we now have the disciplinary regs, so... Yeah, right, 232. Yeah, is there an exercise where these are being compared to 232? You mean today? No, I'm not today. I just mean going forward so that we don't lose sight of whether there's anything relevant in the O5 comments. Well, that's a good point. So the one comment we do have on O5 is proposing to remove the words recklessly and or reckless. And the comment was, you know, discipline should only be warranted in the event the operator knows of it. 232.02, as I read it, is broader than that. It simply says an operator failed to abide by any prohibition of 205 CMR, so it really doesn't... Right. I just wanted to make sure that... And I like 232 the way it's written. I just wanted to make sure that we were sort of going through that exercise. Yeah. Okay. We'll make sure we will make sure. Thanks. Any further comments or questions on these comments? Just a cross-reference, Judy, I don't know if off the top of your head. Do you know if we received any of the additional comments include pertaining to this particular prohibition? I can jump in there. We did receive five comments this morning on this regulation. I believe three of them relate to notifications and the duration. So those three comments would have been addressed. And then there are two additional comments that we'll want to take a closer look at this afternoon. Okay. And we have them all now. So thank you. So we can look at them at the same time. Can I propose a ministerial task if it's not too much? To the extent the team is recommending a change in the comments, is there a way to highlight the block that's actually being recommended so that we can sort of make sure we're looking at the... I'm looking at the ones that maybe you're not recommending. I might look at those a little bit closer because we're talking about the changes. So if you can maybe flag by color coding the ones that are being recommended, that's just a little easier to read. So for instance, today the ones that you would clarify, do you want them either in a red font or a green font? Or even just a yellow highlight the box that it's referenced in so that we know the yellow is the one that you're recommending we take action on in terms of an amendment. And then the others you're not. But then it just helps me go through it a little bit better. If it's not too own or somewhat, I know you guys push for time, but... Caitlin, I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, no, no. I was sort of asking the same thing, just to confirm me exactly what the commissioner wanted. I think that's a reasonable request, Commissioner, and that we can do that moving forward. Excellent. So I just want to thank those who have submitted the comments on this. I think I had noted several times that during our assessment, we heard from the operators that they were surprised about the idea of notice. With that said, I want to give Director Vandal and the opportunity to do some of the research that he wants and to draw together different voices, including those that are represented today. And we'll have a good discussion on this, just to make sure we're not missing out on an opportunity to be on the forefront here. But the operators during our assessment kind of indicated that they were going to have trouble as operators giving notice. So, Mark, I know one of the things you're considering for the future is that notice shift to the gaming commission and make it more comfortable. So, really helpful and we appreciate all the comments that have come in and I look forward to reading the ones that are still out there. Thank you. Okay. Anything further on this 254? All right. Dave, are you on for anything else before we exclude you? I'm not. Thank you for taking this out of order. I appreciate that. Oh, no. Very, very helpful and have a good rest of the day. Dave, is it snowing hard in Boston right now? I think it's raining. Yeah, it's doing something. It's gray and kind of dreary and raining. I've got someone flying in, so I've got them on my mind. So, thanks. You're my weather person. Thank you so much. All right. Thanks, Dave. Go ahead. Okay, Carrie, then we'll turn back then to 2L5CMR138. Is that right? I think that's right. And I think... Oh, Carrie, thank you. Oh, yes. And I think Mina is taking these ones. Yes. Hello. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Nina. And you'll point us to the right page. I will do my best. Yes. Yes. Madam Chair, I have 138 and 238, just so they'll be back to back. But for 138, this starts, I believe, right on page two of your packet, if I'm not mistaken. I just want to make sure I'm in the right place. Thank you. Not correct. I'm sorry. That is showing up. I have it on page 20. Oh, 20. I'm sorry. The packet numbers are not showing up on my printed copy, so let me... I believe we did have some materials for those in the public who are following. We had some materials relevant to our discussion from the round table yesterday that's going to be rolled over to tomorrow. Or if we don't get to tomorrow, it will be on Thursday. So just a note, Karen, that those materials will make sure to make it to Thursday as well. Okay. Thank you. So, Madam Chair, 138 is, if you recall, this is an existing regulation that was in place for gaming, not just sports betting. We had made some amendments in the emergency reg to updated for sports wagering. So while it's very lengthy, it starts on page 20 and goes on for a while. We had actually not, until this morning, received any comments on 138. So there are no changes reflected in your packet. This morning, we received quite a number of comments that I would like to propose taking in sort of two buckets. One comment has to do with a particular section, 138.05, and I'll get to that one in a minute. The remainder of the comments have to do with 138.73, which is all the way at the end of the red. That is, if you recall, this was a provision regarding personal identifying information and sort of data security. There were some questions about that. GLI was instrumental in drafting that regulation initially. We have not had the opportunity to run all of the new comments received today by them. So I propose that we take that one up separately tomorrow rather than trying to get through 73 today. And instead, I will just inform you of the one comment that came in this morning on 138.05, if that's okay with everyone. 138.05. Yeah, so that is on, so 138.05 appears on page. One second. There's a lot of scrolling here. It's a very long right. Thank you. Thank you. The particular question, the particular comment on that one came from DraftKings, David Presswood at DraftKings. And it has to do with 138.05.1D there. That's procedures for terminating or suspending the employment of individuals licensed or registered, pursuant to, and it has a couple of different references. The only change that was made for sports wagering was to just add a reference. And there's small type of typographical correction that comma should be a period in 235.00 that essentially what this provision says is that internal controls must include a way for terminating or suspending an employee licensed by the commission within 24 hours of notification from the commission that the commission has suspended their license or registration. The ask from DraftKings on this one was in light of the fact that it might be difficult to terminate or suspend due to local state labor laws, especially since the folks may be working outside of Massachusetts or professional contracts, et cetera, that the language be changed to include to read rather than simply procedures for terminating or suspending, it would read procedures for terminating or suspending the employment of here's a new language or modifying the relevant responsibilities of comma individuals licensed or registered, and then the rest would stay the same. I bring this up for your consideration. Again, we just received this today. It's certainly, I understand the gist of the comment, it would of course be changing it for gaming and sports wagering. If we were to make that change because this applies, 138 applies for gaming and sports wagering, not just sports betting. Mr. Barry, you might be thinking what I'm thinking, you've got the same look. So yeah, I mean, so we've been functioning with this language for what, six years now almost, and no licensee has brought to our attention any issues with this. And I know some of them are only in mass in the brick and mortar, but they do have some qualifiers that would be outside the Commonwealth. So I'm curious as to why, I mean, suspending to me would seem to incorporate what they're talking about because you could suspend them from basically any contact with Massachusetts. Not really sure why they need the language, but maybe if somebody's more informed on this than me, they can help me out. Can you read the language that they're suggesting one more time, please? So they're suggesting at the beginning of this, Madam Chair, for terminating or suspending the employment of comma or modifying the relevant responsibilities of individuals licensed or registered pursuant to and then the full list would stay the same, also within 24 hours. I think it sounds like they're looking for another, a third option outside of suspension or termination, which I mean, in some cases where you have a table games dealer, for instance, that might be up for some kind of disciplinary action. I think the proposed language would allow that individual to shift over from that role to another role, perhaps one that does not require a higher level license level, such as, like, you know, someone who is a service employee. And that does happen. We see that. It does. So, Madam Chair, go ahead. No, I think one, you know, to address Commissioner O'Brien's question, I think the question, and I don't know if Karen or others can weigh in on this, too, but is whether suspension in the past has been read to actually include this option that if somebody is suspended, as Commissioner Skinner said, from being in table games, you're not asking them to be suspended from the company. DraftKings is obviously new to the market, not having been a gaming licensee. And so this is a clarification to that point. So if the language, I think, works for that purpose, but that's if you could read the current language to do that as well. I think if this was coming, Madam Chair, if this was coming from one of our current licensees, I could see there was an issue, but coming from DraftKings, I'm trying to see what the issue truly is. They do have someone who had a position in licensure here who might be thinking about that issue. I think it clarifies, I don't think it necessarily adds a big option. And I think like Commissioner Skinner's point, and Nina's point, is suspend. Anyway, right, Karen, what are you thinking? I don't know if Loretta's on, but right, Kara, what are you thinking, Karen, about the language? I don't want to put you on the spot. No, because I was just working on posting the agenda, so if you could just okay. Yeah, thank you. I think it's a reasonable suggestion, but it is interesting that DraftKings, to Commissioner Hill's point, they're newly licensed in Massachusetts, but they didn't make that comment to 238, which I understand mirrors 138, right? I would have to. I don't really love the relevant responsibilities in terms of, you know, what does that mean in terms of the notification to suspend or terminate? Is there then some sort of analysis that goes on? How detailed is licensing then have to be to say, no, there's an issue? And they, you know, change their responsibilities. They think addressing it, maybe licensing doesn't agree. Like, I don't know, I can't really love in the language, to be honest. Well, we can chew on it, right? Because we're going to look at it tomorrow. And so, Mina, if there are other comments on it, then we can take that into consideration and maybe find out from Lovada and Karen what they think and Kara, and Commissioner Skinner, with your experience, I don't know. And I'm not really sure, does this flip back to, does it mirror, would it, what happens with 238? Would it just not be in there, or is it would it mirror it? I would have to double check, Madam Chair, but I don't believe that it would necessarily be in there, because these are the kinds of provisions that were, the reason we updated 138.05 was to capture this particular provision for sports wagering. So I don't know that there is a corresponding. That's what I wondered. And also, because it was new, I want to make sure that there was one new comment on 238 from DraftKings, but it wasn't this one. It was a separate, it was a different one. Yeah. And it doesn't look like this language is in 238.05. Yeah. Thank you. And why is that? I missed it. I'm sorry. Why is it not in 238.05? When 138 and 238 were being drafted, some things made sense to keep all together in 138, and some made more sense to separate out in a particular set of internal controls for sports wagering. This particular piece about suspension of employees was applied to sports wagering by inclusion of the text that you see in red on page 29, as opposed to being in a new section of 238. So sports wagering licensees are required to comply with particular provisions of 138, as well as 238. Okay. I get that. The title, though, of this body of regulations, it's, I mean, I guess the language into the language in 138.05 clarifies, but it's titled Uniform Standards of Accounting Procedures and Internal Controls for Gaming. That's the added language there. So that's consistent. It's fine the way it is. That is consistent. I did notice that as I was going back through it, actually yesterday, that whether or not you need the foregaming, I think you could probably do without that change in the permanent reg. It was to distinguish it from the sports wagering, but I would actually recommend that 238 instead keep the, perhaps it could be called additional uniform standards for internal controls for sports wagering. So you can make that change in 238 and remove the foregaming on the top of the page. And so 138 would include both. 238 would be additional for sports wagering only. Exactly. How's that work, Commissioner Skinner? Yeah, I like that because if you're in a hurry or not so savvy with reg reading, you might skip over 138 altogether because with an understanding that it's only for gaming. So, yes, I agree with the removing foregaming from the title there. Yeah. And then clarifying on 238. Okay. I don't want to be a distraction, but it's making me think about something that we could put in the parking lot. And maybe I just have missed it. So forgive me. But the statutory change to 23K that allows for, except service workers to get licensure relief, that would not apply to sports wagering, correct? So, Madam Chair, the level of licensure or registration in gaming that applies to those that are exempt, they're not covered by the requirements of licensure in the sports wagering act. They're not covered. Right. And so I just want, it's only supervisor and above which we capture anyway. We start at such a higher level. We don't have to worry. Exactly. Okay. Exactly. Thanks for that reminder. Thank you, Karen. That's helpful. So, Madam Chair, if that is, I think the thought would be, let us to the best of our ability between today and tomorrow, just trying to circle up with Loretta and Karen and others on that change. And we can take it back up for consideration, ideally tomorrow. And then, as I said, 138.73 is the other piece here. We've gotten comments ranging from let's just remove it all together to a specific clarifying question. So there's quite a bit on that one. We'll do our best to digest those tomorrow given other meetings and so on. So yeah. And please take into consideration Commissioner Bryan's concern about the language. I'll be really helpful. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill, do you have any comments? I see none from you, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard. You all set? I'm good. Okay. Excellent. Thanks. All right. All right. If I may, then I'll go on to 238 unless Karen. Right. And just to clarify, every other red line we reviewed earlier. Correct. 138 is a bit unusual in your regs in these packets because it's the red lines are changes to an existing reg as opposed to changes because of comments or since you last saw it. All right. So with that, 238 begins, I believe, 103, I believe, Maynard. All right. Thank you. So 238 begins at 103. And there are a set of comments as well as I can go through it at the end. There are a couple of changes here. We did receive one additional comment today. I think we can talk about it as we go here and perhaps try to resolve it today as well. So again, these are the sports wagering specific internal controls. I think just to recap what we just discussed, I would suggest retitling this additional uniform standards for accounting procedures and internal controls for sports wagering just for the clarification at the title. So that's not reflected in your packet but would be here. There were not a lot of changes to this, but the first one that I believe you'll encounter is all the way at page 119. The end of subsection 2D has been had a new one added, Complaints of an Athlete Engaging in Prohibited Sports and Prohibited Waging Conduct, excuse me. This is a comment, this is a reflection on a comment we had received from the sports governing bodies, I believe, following either the round table or in written form about their desire to have a process for reporting to the sports governing body violations of the prohibition on sports wagering by athletes. And so that's what that reflects is a response to that ask from sports governing bodies. The following change is also one that I believe came from those sets of comments. It makes it a two-way street. A sports wagering operator is to maintain confidentiality of information provided by a sports governing body and the sports governing body should maintain the confidentiality of information provided by an operator while an investigation is pending. So those were both in the same thing. There is related changes in subsection 3A that goes from 119 to 120. Again these were suggestions that we thought were reasonable from the sports governing bodies adding a few more categories of when it is appropriate to have disclosure of that information. The first one that remains the same, just a sort of stylistic change is disclosure when disclosure is required by law. If the sports governing body or the operator consent to disclosure where it's necessary to conduct or resolve the investigation or where the governing body deems in its reasonable judgment, disclosure is necessary to maintain integrity of the events. This was a concern that if there is an issue out there and the sports governing body needs to be able to disclose it so that there is not a lack of trust in the outcome of games, etc. So that is the proposed ones here all came I believe from that round table all comments. Nina, could you distinguish the color coding on the comments? So red I assume are changes made in response to an earlier review of the regulation. The blue and the olive green I guess, I'm not sure. I will do my best to do that. I am not sure if this is simply a matter of multiple authors Commissioner Skinner because I believe all of these are new from all the changes in this section are new. I'm just double checking how we did not we did this red line as track changes so sometimes it pops up in different colors but all of the changes here are not ones you've reviewed before. In the entire set? In the entire 238, yes. Okay, yeah. All right, thank you. Yeah, so any questions on those? Are those changes? And I am just double checking to see if anything else is the next where the next ones reflected are any. Okay, 238, 32. This is on page 130. So I just want to make sure everybody's there. This is regarding a restricted patrons and the internal controls regarding restricted patrons. This was I believe you may recall a conversation about at some point about who exactly and we had received some comments about who would be prohibited from sports wagering and if and the scope of that the original language had mirror 23 the setup under gaming more directly. The changes here included are updated partially to reflect some of the language used throughout the 200 series of regs such as the references subcontractors which appears in the vendor reg qualifiers and the addition of the the language that starts with or with any other sports waging operator tethered to the operator was intended to capture a tethered entity. I think that that was the that's the policy choice for the commission but where where tethered entities are a little bit different than necessarily part of the same corporate entity. There is an exception for private pools so that it does which is from what I understand from GLI a fairly common exception to this that this is a standard way of handling that. Just want to walk us through the language a little bit Nina. Sure so you know start starting off subcontractors or qualifiers that's that's really just to make sure we're following the right terms in the 200 series subcontractors it's actually in the vendor regs there's a reference to subcontractors as a specific category and qualifiers as a defined term. The next change as well as those within the same household that's really an updating of language that is you know rather than a relative a same household is probably a more modern way to to write that and then the next one is that is really the substantive change. The this this provision prohibits essentially folks associated or would have prohibited folks associated with an operator from wagering a question came up I think during the licensing process of how does this apply to tethered category three licensees and their employees and the proposal here is to also exclude the same folks would be if you are a category one licensees director officer owner employee you you certainly can't bet it at the sports book but you also can't go ahead and bet on the tethered category three that's what this language is intended to do the private pool is sort of the limited if you're you know within a private network and everyone knows that you're part of it there's a little bit of a of a different story. Questions for Mina on this okay and then subsection two applies the same concept correct correct yeah yeah yep and this is in response to a comment that I believe this I'm trying to remember it as when we go back to the comment this was a particular comment or a query that came in during the submission of internal controls I think this this was not necessarily a comment that came in specific to this reg it was a question more generally of what were the prohibitions on employee wagering and so we created a policy the commission created a policy and we're now sort of applying it across the regs so everything is is even enough to date yeah the next changes are on the following page I'm sorry unless there are other questions madam chair I can move on okay um 238 33 the list of prohibited persons was expanded to include the I believe this is the self-exclusion list if I'm not mistaken carry out 152 if I have my numbers correct so that's what sorry self-excludes 233 it's the gaming exclusion list yeah um and that maybe let me just double check her that I had a very long read that is it for changes to date I can walk us through other changes that we did not accept in the comments or suggestions in the comments I think it's okay to kind of go through the comments um even those that were accepted just so that we sure there were quite a few keep practicing thank you sure um so um 230 uh this is these start on page 143 is where the comments start right after the reg and I will try my best to cross reference although it might be hard to cross reference the actual pages 230802 or the comment had to do with requiring an opportunity to comment and for the operator on the internal controls in the process of a of the commissioner the executive directors review of internal controls the it we did not think that change was necessary and explicitly necessary here because there's already a reasonable period for the operator to implement and it is actually something that happens just as a matter of course it's it is a live back and forth and we want to stay close to the process under giving 2308093 was the next comment also from Ben MGM that comment had to do with changes to um how uh data security would be changed um it or would be addressed um this one I believe we felt was adequately addressed already um and it's and I want you to struggling to find exactly uh change here but there was sort of a to the extent possible at the end as opposed to a strict standard and um there's always a potential for a waiver there's always potentials to work with the commission and staff of course but having a to extent possible was a somewhat vague standard that we didn't want to um open update on data security issues um 238 um 12a um I just want to get uh the exact language here um in front of me um 12 2a excuse me um has to do with the um holding of uh ensuring that funds in sports wager accounts are held in segregated accounts and the question was uh one whether the the commission could clarify whether the commission intends for operators to create a trust vehicle on top of the segregated account um the reg doesn't really get into that it's not clear that that's necessary for the reg to do um um and so we we weren't we did not think that adding in a requirement to to create a trust account or not create a trust account was necessary here um as mgm notes this is adopted from um other jurisdictions as well any questions on that one commissioners I have a general question there are a couple of questions posed by some of the commenters are our is our legal team and um like our sports wagering uh division chief and Karen are they responding to those in a different forum and if they haven't at some point will will they be questions questions have been coming in from various areas and into various areas um and so we have been working with the sports wagering division Karen basically whoever whoever the proper entity is for the question to make sure questions are addressed sometimes it's one off one by one sometimes we get a lot of a similar question and so they get addressed in tandem um sort of as a group response but we are we are absolutely doing that commissioners care that's one of the challenges because for instance on the issue that we dealt with yesterday there was a response from the team but there were nuances that just didn't get addressed so we just like give the you know the whole team the permission to come back if there's something you need you know some insights from the commission on on those policy nuances please please do um that's why I think Commissioner Skinner it's good for us to get the comments on the same timeline so that we can see any trending funky issue that's arising so to Commissioner Skinner's point on these two questions Caitlin would the trust vehicle requirement inhibit operators from applying payment processor reserves receivables to the reserve requirements do we know the answer to that I don't know the answer to that at this moment okay and I think sometimes too when we get these questions in during the reg process sometimes the reg changes um so we can we can take a look at that and respond once it's finalized right I see what you mean like it comes it's no longer relevant right and then would operas be required to cash fund this portion of the reserve I think Karen this is probably something that um VLI and and Director Bann's team will need to be working with legal and I'm not looking for an answer on any of these questions today um but Chair you reference you know so the the the greater need to have Commissioner weigh weigh in and input as necessary so that's where my interest lies that's right um you know if there's something trending then you know we can we can all chew on it together and that might be more efficient more run um okay I can move on to the next night I should just also clarify I'm just particular one that there is um I think our view is that this doesn't require a trust fund and just make sure Patriots kept their money back that's really the only part of uh that's that's the commission so we can certainly help address the questions separately right thank you Mina um 12b3 was the next source of comments um the request from MGM would be to give the commission the right to choose uh whether to allow um this is different corporate restructurings essentially um and so the proposal is um to allow the commission to provide consent as opposed to having a prohibition from dissolving while um there are unsatisfied obligations to patrons uh we didn't feel this change was necessary in the reg it sort of suggests that the commission you know might consider it and I think you uh the as a policy matter it and you you know the rest of the reg is clear that you're trying to make sure patrons are protected first uh of course an applicant can always uh come to the commission and request relief from this provision if necessary in a corporate restructure and that's also addressed by the could be addressed through the transfer process etc so we're recommending no change there um the next change is 238 12 5 um this is the uh provision that provides that the commission may audit uh your the reserves at any time um and the request here was to give eight hours advance notice um in in advance of that um again you kind of have a reasonableness standard and and of course um you you know this is there should be adequate reserves and if reserves are being added within eight hours that may raise different questions about why they weren't there before so we're not proposing a change there either all right now we are on to 238 14 uh three um um this was actually a question not a a request for a change um the question was is it a uh there's a couple of questions so 248 238 excuse me 14 three requires that um um pages here um that there are reports uh to the commission um in the context i'm so sorry i'm just trying to make sure i'm getting the right page no no problem uh in a report of an error that occurs in offering an event or unapproved sporting event is offered to the um the public um so making sure that the commission gets a report the question was is it correct to understand that error refers to error leading to voiding or canceling of wagers or what is the manner informed proved by the commission for reporting such errors um to answer the first question it may lead to voiding or canceling but uh that's that's certainly that's as you know uh addressing a different rag and so the you want the report whether uh regardless the manner and form approved by the commission was language reviews as you know a couple of places to make sure that um there's flexibility to have the most efficient way to do this um i am not sure if a particular manner has been set up yet but you could foresee in the future um for instance an email account or a or a notification system that that goes into place um so far it appears that you have gotten notification when something like this has happened so far yeah but your point is that it's got to be a report of any error and not just one that results in avoiding cancellation i i correct in in the sense that it while it probably would result in that you wouldn't want someone say well since we didn't void or cancel we're not going to report it because the commission may disagree that it should have been voided or canceled so that's one of the one of the reasons you don't want it to be you want to be broader um on process on that karen is that something that will come from the manner and form is that coming out of the sports wagering division ieb or did we know yet i'm not sure we've hammered that out yet there's there's a lot of intersection between the divisions in a lot of areas i'm just talking about that with another member of the team this morning and i think we we would like to see what works best at this point right and how it intersects but there'll be coordination certainly between those to the bureau and yes and questions on that um you know we're lucky right now that we've had self disclosure but i i think if there's a form or report that makes it easier for reporting then that's great right but right now we don't don't necessarily have that okay okay um madam chair moving on to 238 181 this was a request to this the this provision has to do with implementing integrity monitoring procedures this provision provides that that can be done in house by an operator or by a licensed vendor the request was to change the word vendor to integrity monitor we didn't pick up that change because while it very well could be an integrity monitor we didn't want to limit it in that case and on top of that i think there are ongoing conversations with ieb and the legal team to figure out if we would want a separate regulation around integrity monitors and if it makes sense to sort of set that up as a separate category uh so for certainly for now we think vendor covers that it could be a could be a particular model but they want to make sure what do you think about that okay because vendor absolutely includes in the integrity monitor right exactly it's yeah and and i think if it's a separate vendor that's not capable of doing that task they wouldn't be meeting their internal intervals 238 182 d2 is a request that reports to the sports governing body include just actual breaches of rules of conduct not potential breaches i would i can understand the sentiment i think the reason the sports governing bodies would like that reporting is if there is for instance an athlete trying to place a bet that gets caught or or before they're able to follow through with a plan there that should be reported i think they'd want to know so i would keep that as is personally um the comment on 238 13 from that fowler i b i a is actually the one we talked about earlier in 238 183 regarding the two-way flow of communication of confidential communication between sports governing bodies and operators 238 185 the it was a request to strike the words in that provision evaluate or so that that section would not um include the commission's ability to evaluate a sports waging platform um we didn't i think the concern here that was listed by i b a was that this seemed to that to imply that the that the commission would be doing its own integrity monitoring as opposed to the uh an integrity monitor or the operator itself i i don't think that's the intent of it it's simply that you're able to um look over their shoulder as necessary so i i would leave the language in because simply monitoring it um may not be enough to to adequately figure out if it's it's sufficient um controls on software and hardware the um and i will keep going unless there are questions are there any questions on that it's in terms of needing any further clarification on that you're comfortable me right despite i am comfortable with it as is um it preserves some power for the commission you don't necessarily have to use it to evaluate i can understand the the sentiment that i think as the commenter points out this maybe makes more sense in uh places like Rhode Island that may have a single um regulate you know regulate entity but that doesn't necessarily mean that you wouldn't want to again be able to double check or sort of do a due diligence on it and that's where the evaluate comes in um 238 uh 15 185 a excuse me um the this is a pawn request by the commission a sports regional operator is supposed to provide remote read-only access um for all these you know this is sort of the same provision um for all reports of abnormal bedding activity the request here is to expand that and limited to all reports of abnormal bedding activity solicited by the regulator um that involve wagering activity from patrons physically located in Massachusetts or involve activity in Massachusetts so essentially what the proposed change would be saying is if you are um um looking to view abnormal bedding activity you should be limited to Massachusetts abnormal bedding uh again i would um while while your jurisdiction may be limited in doing something outside the state if you're seeing uh problems occurring elsewhere by looking at this it allows you to work with um with you know compatriots in other states and actually figure out if there's a larger problem um uh particularly with web based and category three um entity so i i that's the reason we rejected that comment okay um our next set of comments come down to 238 22 um this is the provisions regarding complaints pertaining to sports wagering um the uh section four uh require currently requires um sports waging operators to respond to complaints within 10 business days uh the request here is within 10 business days after completing an investigation um we rejected that because it provides sort of an open-ended timeline for operators to get back to complainants if they are not done with an investigation they could tell the complainant that but otherwise this sort of leaves could leave somebody hanging for a very long time um the following section actually they there was proposing to remove the provisions says if a response to a complaint is that more information is needed um the uh the the form and nature of the information needed should be specifically stated to the complainant um i i think that's an important provision again so that folks aren't discouraged from following up on a complaint it actually kind of dovetails well with keeping the prior provision um and keeping things efficient um the 238 226 the request to change is at the moment the sports waging operator is or as it should advise the patron of their right to submit the complaint to the commission um i'm actually wondering if this is that in the right place give me one second um i'm sorry i i believe there's a typo just in the chart this is 238 227 um the sports waging operator is supposed to promptly notify the commission of any complaints the request here was to change promptly to 24 to 48 hours um we have in a couple of places talked about promptly versus a set time i would uh recommend against making this change uh because depending on the nature of the complaint if it's serious enough you might need to know sooner um if it requires a little bit more fact out of before the commission could even understand uh what the complaint is you may end up on the outside end of that so promptly gives more flexibility and i think um it's certainly while it has some inherent ambiguity it's a standard that's used all over the place um 238 2207 um 227 excuse me has again the recommendation here is that the action of notifying the commission uh or the request of an unresolved complaint following the patron rather than the operator um as drafted that the operator is supposed to provide that to the commission again um this place is um you know the burden on the operator to really make sure that they're providing you with the information as opposed to the patron and so we would keep that as it's me now yes how would a patron file such a complaint is it through the fair deal hotline or some other avenue um i would assume so but i'll defer to others um the commission staff maybe better at answering that karen do you want to go over the um ways that yeah are we talking there so there's two things we're talking about and make sure i understand there's complaints to the commission which would come through the fair deal hotline or on site can go to a gaming agent but then patron complaints may actually go to the operator and they're required to have their own system for addressing those internal complaints and me now that's that's what this reg's talking about right here correct correct um although in this reg they also need to notify the patron of the avenues to go to the commission so yeah they should they should have internal controls for providing information about fair deal right and then it's a former that i was interested in so thank you i'm sorry i spoke over you i spoke over you i'm so sorry what did you say so that i was just clarifying that it is the former scenario i was interested in so complaints to the commission yeah yeah so that would be the fair deal which has the hotline and there's also a website all right and the web so there's three that's so it's important and so the internal control should reflect the three and as always um yeah our websites that gives the um that general communications email too so those would be the three key ones um and then before i move off this section um the new comment received today is actually on the same section so i am um trying to make sure we we address that as well um the the question um is is really about the same that um that the it was the same request from it was it was the same request from graph kings as has been mgm that uh the commission strike the requirement that it that the operator explain or provide notice of complaints that have not been resolved to the patron their their point is their their concern that they don't know if something has been resolved the satisfaction of the patron um and again they would they would rather that come from the patron itself again remember that this is all internal controls regs and so they need to have a process for this at the end of the day that process can be very simply are you satisfied with the with with the resolution of this and if not that could trigger a flag that that reports to you um to uh that that takes care of the 238 22 comments so i'm moving on to 238 32 this is restricted patrons um there were a couple uh of comments are sort of related um here um uh first uh 238 three uh there was a request that there'd be an exception if an operator genuinely is unaware of improper activity um and so the request would be to have actual constructive knowledge i will say we've seen this particular theme in a lot of the comments uh to sort of change standards to knowing or actual knowledge or constructive knowledge and i see Commissioner Maynard shaking his head and i i i i i maybe read your mind a little bit but i second that sentiment i think that may factor into for instance the enforcement proceedings and what kind of um enforcement the commission takes but it sets a standard that allows folks to really look the other way if you're putting it right to the right so we recommend against it essentially uniformly across the board um you should go into mind-breeding Mina is that right okay good every once in a while i get one right um 238 331 h is um there was a there's sort of a catch-all for prohibited persons as other prohibited persons as determined by the commission the request to have as reasonably determined by the commission um i think the the request to change may be misinterpreting the purpose of of that language the purpose isn't to sort of have one-off prohibitions on folks but to have to capture any categories that just may not have been listed um if for instance a new category comes up one that is um not on here for instance i believe um is just to use a very basic example is um folks may be prohibited under your internal enhanced code of ethics um and so that would be captured in in that um i as opposed to an idea of that sort of a one-off determination so it'll still be through the regular process if i can move on to 238 35 this has to do with cancellation um the request here is um again has to do with the integrity monitoring the role of the integrity monitor um it um and this is a similar comment to what we had talked about before that the um i'm sorry i just want to make sure i'm reading the right thing uh i apologize this is a wrong place 238 35 as cancellation of an otherwise validly placed uh sports wagering the comment is was a really a question are these situations where operators are required to cancel avoided wagers a discretionary for operators to cancel or avoid such a wager and so the question is under the standard in 238 35 um is there um this is is it are these situations um mandatory cancellation or avoiding and i believe the answer is yes it is it is mandatory under all of these um for when it can be canceled i know this has been a provision i always dealt with recently so i don't know if there's any other questions or additions on this one why is that why is that not clear that's what i guess i'm wondering um um i think the question they were asking is because the way the language is written i think that the it says that these are the situations where they can cancel um without going to the commission first and asking if they can cancel um and so they say so they wanted to know if that implies an ability not to cancel because of that and i think the answer is no the reason it's it's set this way is just to set it apart from the category where they do need to come to you first um and and not and as opposed to the ones where they need to request which is an item too thank you yeah it's essentially the same same comment um in in that case um i and for the next two comments actually and i i think um for the next several comments all the ones in 35 really come come to the same point um is whether these are required cancellation from two different parties from two different parties that's right uh can be helpful to get back to them on those questions then because i assuming that language is good you know um you're having audio issues it sounds you're still having issues it's not really scary it's oh i think it's Todd can you hear me now well it was really interesting as i thought it finally happened we're getting and hear you i'm kind of a bombing um from the outside world there we go Todd you're good all right it's a long story i'll spare you the details um anyway i was just saying if you kids put a filter on them that's what happens some things Todd you should definitely go back and listen to the look at the the video because i appreciate the invitation i may pass based on your reaction if you can hear me now i'm sorry to make a big deal about this but i was just saying that i think it probably stems from the use of the word may that the operator may cancel the wager maybe we just clarify i don't know if the word shell would uh take it too far to the other side but that seems to be the cause of the confusion uh yeah i think to Todd's point there's a couple of different maze and shells in this section and that may be the cause of confusion so at the beginning of the section it reads for any transaction where sports waging operator may cancel avoid a wager with or without prior authorization they have to submit internal controls and then in the beginning of one it says cancellation of an otherwise badly placed wager by a sports waging operator shall be non-discretionary a sports waging operator shall only cancel or avoid a wager without prior authorization of the commission under the following circumstances if i were to suggest a very simple change it would just be to remove the only in that place the only suggests that that i think is actually where some of the discretionary language is coming in that section and it would otherwise then read a sports waging operator shall cancel or avoid under the following circumstances so there's no discretion i'm sorry madam chair no go right ahead commissioner skinner so that there's no discretion as to whether an operator can cancel in those specific circumstances correct commissioner skinner and the circumstances under a through k that would be non-discretionary it would reaffirm that's non-discretionary and then in two you would get the may request the commission in other circumstances um which would be discretionary thank you and so i i think i think that helps me now and um Todd yeah so i appreciate Todd's input from the galaxy far far away at the beginning of that i don't know if it was a galaxy or some horror movie yeah right it was a little scary but it's okay thanks me and we'll talk about that later anyway so um that i think takes us through the 238 35 comments actually that's the gist of all of them was really the same question and we we only have a handful more i apologize this is i know a lengthy process 238 36 to be is um the has to do with the kiosks i think this was a requested um you had requested public comment on these um the uh from the the question was whether or not to accept wages with a potential payout in excess of $10,000 um we spoke um that that's currently prohibited in the regs there was some suggestion that um instead say that the limitation be that you can't accept an anonymous sports wager with a potential in excess of $10,000 because the intent of this was really to prevent someone um getting the payout from a kiosk that they couldn't you know go into someone else we had a discussion with gli about this i think they they believe that as written is a stronger protection uh acknowledging that uh yes somebody could always you know hand their ticket to someone else under any circumstance but certainly leaving one more avenue that's harder to patrol than and then a regular uh that at a counter or online um maybe um not wise and so they they had suggested leaving it in at this limitation i believe that this was raised on uh launch day kristian maynor do you have a memory of that when we were at oncler well both well i i remember it from that but north himself actually walked me over the day before when i went to do the walkthrough and what i was amazed about was um how quickly a few dollars put into the the machine could actually lead to you know a potential payout of more than $10,000 um i i mean kind of to play devil's advocate mena and and to gli is you know you also create a situation where if somebody's putting you know three or four dollars in going through a parlay of various you know um outcomes and then getting to $11,000 they get you know the machine won't take it which i got to see that um in action um you know you're you're essentially asking the patron to then um go you know go to the window um they may just not they may just not even place the wager at that point right and so you know when i was thinking about it initially and when we read through these initially i was thinking about you know huge amounts of money going into the machine that would equal this $10,000 payout but that's actually not it's not what happens so um um i i would be probably open to having having a conversation and maybe you know gli to see if that threshold couldn't move up but i did see it in action and it's you know it could become or some to um to patrons okay so on the on in commissioner maynard thank you for that because i think you mentioned it when there was a some a representative from on court boston harbour who was showing at least me i thought it was you too when we were um all there this issue so when they say unless the redemption of such wager requires validation by a member of the licensee staff what would prompt that how would they know how does that work i don't know um joe or others who are on can can address that um just in practice how that might look or or anybody on on on the staff team but i i think the idea of that additional language from the commenter is that um you would you know if you if you hit it a hit above $10,000 at that point um there's sort of one more step before you go over from the kiosk uh to uh to the ticket counter and i see sterile came uh online or on on video and and i know sterile you were part of that conversation as well so i'll defer to you um so i'm i'm confused it is exactly what's being asked about the payout is it that a supervisor comes over because any payout over 10 000 must go to the window where the manager is at no payout can be done at a kiosk over 5 000 it is immediately directed to the window that's this this regulation and as um commissioner maynard stated and we've had discussions prior is the the regulation of requiring a small amount being wagered at a kiosk in turn having to be forced to the window due to the payout being taxable makes um is just strange due to the fact that it needs to go to the window anyways so i am unsure um if i answered the question so it needs to go because why why does it need to go to begin with taxes anytime you have to fill out taxes you must provide positive identification and the person um placing the ticket at the window has to fill out w2 forms now depending on also the amount we know it's anything 300 to one or more or 5 000 but people do not have to have the taxes pulled out they can just report a w2 reporting so that in turn requires that we are dealing with the person that we know is the person for facts of reporting to the irs so that makes sense to me so i but what doesn't make sense then is it's uh the comment that we we see both verbally and in writing because they must be thinking of something else i see that that gave has i mean any further insight as to what um north and claimage park casino might be thinking of gave good morning good afternoon good afternoon chair no i think sterile covered it spot on nothing else to add i was i was going to add but the sterile covered it and joe too has come in so claimage park says the sponsor except payouts for winning multi leg tickets regularly exceed the threshold with wagers far below any federal reported or irs requirements so they're saying with wagers that don't the wages down to report will aspect though it's how that is yeah what i think they're trying to state is that the wagers are so low that they don't hit reportable um measures for taxes or ctr violations so transacting over 10 000 and wagers requires to go to the window for identification as well so i think what they're saying is just because the payout reaches an excess of 10 000 that the the results being so small of even a five dollar wager with maybe seven or eight legs on a parley will go over the 10 000 i think that's what they're trying to say i think that's right yeah i think that strobe really hit it on the the nail if if we're able to identify the person who wins this wager and it and we do have other provisions for that it seems almost um it's it's unnecessary it seems unnecessary to then prevent the wager from happening at the kiosk right so i i can literally you know i think that's what we're talking about here the putting in versus the taking out taking out right now i can't put in five dollars right if i'm a patron and and hit the parlays to make it 11 000 i'm going to use that number i can't even do that at the kiosk it's going to drive me to the window um but my argument would be let's say i've made that wager at the kiosk and i win let's say i hit them all and i win i have to go to the window anyways to cash it out so that's why i'm open to to changing this and allowing that wager to happen at the kiosk because then once you're at the kiosking you see oh i could actually hit over 10 000 you don't have to then move yourself to the line um of the window that's how i understood it to commissioner maynard what do you think about that sterile joe and gave i agree you're going to get something that says oh hey great news you're over 10 000 bad news you got tax implications you got to go to the window yeah they can't get it at all it literally they can't place it they can't punch out the ticket they need to then go to the window right so the question is could they should it be allowed to place the bat even if the result requires ultimate visit to the window that's up to the commissioners but by because they ultimately the decision is up to the commission here and i want to say during discussions of the stipulation that additional rules were considered like the what if the patron owes tax and or a parental uh yeah i believe you guys have rules around that so whereas this patron places a bet and wins a ticket over uh you know 10 grand now they handed to their you know sibling or or friend and now they they cash that ticket and avoid the other uh stipulations at hand i i believe that was part of this discussion in this in this situation can that happen at the casino that can happen at the casino that can happen at a gaming table that can happen at the person that gamed at the window and then returned we only had we have a certain amount of time for video coverage if this is a parlay taking several days or in the future or a future bet so any future bet that gives extreme odds like um you know you mass winning the a 10 winning the turn the tournament could be at absolutely no offense Joe um uh but it could go way up there you know what i mean to where it would be a taxable event but that in turn would have been handed in a while ago you know so you're not going to stop that particular part of if somebody is going to circumvent but our excellent surveillance will stop it right sterile yes yes can i make one more point madam chair yes commission it's it's related you know you're also driving folks to the window i i've seen pictures online of of some long lines and you know a parlay takes a while right so sitting there to the person across from the window doing your selection is going to have time versus at the kiosk it literally was click click click click done um so that's something to you know keep in mind is that you know it could it could actually drive um you know longer wait times at the windows for sure and and if we were going to if we stick with this rule i think then we should really give fair notice to players if you're going to end up you know the parlay that or something gets you over 10 000 start at the window and don't go in the kiosk line at the very least because that's just for the friction but i prefer if that's why i guess the language that gets proposed except an anonymous sports wager with a potential payout nexus of 10 000 unless the redemption of such wager requires validation by a member of the licensee staff i don't still don't know what that means um madam chair i don't know if this is what north gruntzall was was trying to do but i perhaps was was trying to come up with compromise language i think based on what i'm hearing from sterl and gli and others i think the compromise may be more confusing than the policy decision one way or another the commission could decide it sounds like that second part of that is already happening and actually would happen under two a that the kiosk can't issue a redeem a sports wager in that voucher in excess of 10 000 you don't really need the second part so i think the real question for the commission is whether the key b or not um and i i suspect the commenter would it be disappointed if you remove b altogether or and if you rejected it that would be the different policy choice commissioners you've heard from commissioner maynard and me what are you thinking we just happened i think get some um real life intelligence i think i don't know if karen also saw this but we i did also have a um a visual when i was at long core commissioner spinner commissioner bryan commissioner hill what do you think commissioner hill you've got some thoughts on this no i agree with commissioner maynard on this issue commissioner bryan commissioner skinner i'd like to ask me to go over that insight just once again in terms of really trying to understand what um ppc is trying to get it here i think and i you know i don't know ppc was focused on two a and two b together but what what they're asking for is a change would keep the provision that prohibits anonymous sports wager with a potential payout unless a redemption of such wager requires validation by a member of the licensee's staff and i think what sterl is reporting is is that both under two a and other provisions you really can't redeem a ten thousand dollar payout or higher payout um except in front of a real life person um so in in other words what ppc suggested i think to try to get at the concern is actually already true um it may be more confusing because it suggests that um for instance somebody who's not at a ticket counter um could come and simply verify the ticket and that's i don't think that's the intent um whereas simply removing this would still have the same results in that if you place a wager that uh result in an eleven thousand dollar payout you have to go to ticket counter to redeem it and commissioner that's what happens on the casino floor now you know yeah and so with that i'm hearing that the concerns raised in this comment at least it are moved right the the underlying concern is not commissioner skinner i think the commenter's concern is is as commissioner mated was describing that at the moment that that would just simply be prohibited um that if if uh parley could result for instance in an eleven thousand dollar payout once you try to enter it into the kiosk the internal controls would have to be set up in a way that you just simply can't you have to go to a window just to actually enter it um whereas what the what the commenter's suggesting and what the deletion of b would would do um would both allow that bet to be placed but not collected on unless you go to the ticket counter okay but did commissioner maynard say the bet couldn't even be placed at the window in the first place if it's if it's above ten thousand dollars if the result could be above you know if you place your wager and you look if you get lucky you kind of make over ten thousand but they they won't let you place that wager at the kiosk you're right at the very start so it's an extra friction right which is going to then they'd have to go to the window and place the bet not just get the redeem the winnings right if they're lucky enough to win right um does that make sense it does and and i'm comfortable um accepting the recommendations here for the our our team's recommendations not to accept the change oh i i think it is to accept the change but maybe not the exact language that he's is that what am i am i reading this wrong if if it's helpful i've had conversations with north as well as this is not only north's um question but also on core and mgm also have the same um question of the the intent of the regulation um and it is that they are they feel um any taxable event is always put to the window and that covers the ctr and taxable um controls that we wished or desire and that the the small amount of money in parlays at a kiosk should not be prevented because they're having a taxable event on the opposite side because they are forced to go to the window anyways i believe that's what is meant by the question okay so i'm going to need clarity because if there's a change being recommended in response to the comment it's not marked up in the section of the reg so that's that's what i'm confused about what is the but we are going to vote tomorrow on it so i understand i just need the language that we're going to vote on with respect to this particular section because it hasn't been communicated i i don't think as far and commissioner skinner just to be clear this is why we're going through all the comments because i think this is a case where the team thought the existing reg was was good and commissioner maynard brought some new light to this particular comment and it was consistent with what i have been hearing too so this is where our conversation this is a really good conversation for us to be having because it would be a change from what the team was recommended okay and i didn't i didn't hear that um i didn't understand that to me the case yeah so i guess we and i will clarify for yeah i'm happy to clarify uh now i i think this is one where we knew we'd be talking about it with this group because it raises a policy decision for the commission um and we had kind of heard and we had thought of both sides of the argument internally um and so commissioner skinner if the one one policy choice would be to allow these kinds of um that's with with more than a $10,000 payout to take place at the kiosk understanding that they couldn't be cashed out anyway uh except at a window to effectuate that policy choice you would simply delete to be so you would just delete that language all together the other policy choice would be not to allow those um and that would be to retain the language as is so i would just phrase it that simply so maybe in terms of because it's would be a change let's just see if we have a little bit of a consensus on this uh like a straw well commissioners um as i understand it this would if we made the change that mean to just outline this meant means that a a patron could go up and make a $3 bet at the kiosk and actually wager that even if the potential outcome is over 10,000 right now they would get a stop and they'd have to go place that $3 bet at the window is that exact is that this fundamental as we get commissioner brian questions so i just want to make sure i heard sterile correctly that the first option mean to just talk about which is deletion of to be that circumstance would present itself already presents itself at say table games where the person could anonymously be in this circumstance and then the the check on the payout and the childcare etc is all gathered and captured at the payout is that is that right we have controls at the table game to where if somebody is winning a sizable jackpot that the surveillance takes a picture of them and even if they do not have proper idea at that time they must compare the picture to the person that placed the wager and won the wager at that time all right and and that is where leon's because i knew that some slots have the capacity to have the video etc and i know that my understanding is i don't think the kiosks that we're getting necessarily have that capacity activated yeah one of the things i was wondering is just that is is there a way to basically say you got to capture the video when you do it so the difference between sports wagering and the table games and slots is the event happens instantaneously at the table game and slots right so the sports wager let's even say somebody won this on during the Super Bowl they haven't had to cash their ticket in this is the same when it comes to horse racing any paramutual it's all the same right so that's that's just the subtlety the little difference here but also just just for knowledge is a lot of people use these tickets to gift people as well so they do transfer future wagers on their favorite teams somebody loves the Patriots i want to give them a birthday gift of them winning the Super Bowl as a ticket so yeah that that's a whole other question i guess because i know in the lottery context you're not supposed to transfer these things so well exactly so in the lottery right there are set of rules as well in in the adw context do i have to go to a teller to place that kind of bet over 10 000 or can i do it on the adw account online well see the we don't have the problem with this as as a the mobile operator because they're attached to their account right so it's just the in person you're doing it from your mouth i'll i'll express what is my concern with dropping be all together which is the attempt to circumvent having some sort of tax obligation or child support obligation where the person knows and we don't know for sure who they are and they they just have someone out they use a beard to go cash them out and that would be possible under the scenario as opposed to having to go to the kiosk so i'm not entirely sold on the idea that be should be dropped so sure brian i think that's exactly what gli started with that that was our position and that's where we started that that's the risk um we do have surveillance there are cameras over i just want to make it very clear publicly the problem is i'm just no just one minute please come in i just want to say to the public we do have security over the kiosk so this would not be an optimal decision on somebody who's winning on 10 000 or more right well except for long and maybe this is not a conversation for open but those are not kept in perpetuity and so the fact that you have up to a year to cash that ticket in unless that video is kept for a year to go back time date sample the video to make sure it's the same person those are for not potentially but wouldn't wouldn't the issue so it's because it's anonymous um because it's anonymous anonymous yeah but but isn't i mean that would be the case i mean 10 000 is the wrong number then right because isn't aren't there reporting requirements for winnings a lot less than 10 000 and so i don't i guess ten or five i think that might be a question five thousand five yeah so that exists anyway i mean you know you have the potential for you know folks to evade um you know their their tax obligations you know even well below the 10 000 threshold so i think maybe it's a much larger discussion to be had um you know outside of this particular section of 238 perhaps i would i would just like to remind everyone that the kiosk is exactly the same as the window at the window do they have to place any um is it anonymous as well yes it is absolutely anonymous you do not have to wait whether the constraint is whether this is the person is placing it at the the kiosk or the window the same controls are there there is no advantage to placing it at either place you will still have the same controls affecting both areas i just wanted to make that clear if it wasn't so unlike the table where a picture is taken then window or kiosk we're not going to have that same picture unless window or kiosk does have a picture for up to a year window and kiosk does have a picture and let's not get into any details around our security if we can avoid it um i think commissioner bryan was referencing do we maintain and that's just you know right but we have surveillance we have surveillance um no i was talking about there isn't there's a technological capacity for kiosk to snap photos that we heard about way early on in this process um and yes that that's a different question and whether or not that's president activated at a kiosk madam chair if i may ask commissioner maynard commissioner bryan i had asked that question that you asked um and that sterl just basically said was is there any difference in me walking to the the kiosk versus the the window and that's why i even you know you know if we could just transport ourselves over there and and and do the same three dollar bet on both to me it made no sense that the kiosk would stop me but the window wouldn't when there was no additional controls on the window over over top of the kiosk so i think you know i think that was a big part of of you know they they took advantage of of the educational opportunity the day before we launched to try to you know to show me that the issue so i i had the same same question yeah yeah so i'm i'm wearing commissioner schinner was in terms of this to me is also a bigger question if we're going to maximize capturing delinquency and taxes and child support do we want to rethink how that's how that's handled in terms of that but that's a policy question that goes beyond 238 yeah i agree and i agree with your underlying concern but i don't think the elimination of that to be there is going to is going to make much of a difference so i would be okay with eliminating that language with the follow-up on on perhaps an obsession on additional controls and i think commissioner brine you're noting that we are we are hopeful that there's additional technological improvements on these kiosks i think that's what you're really noting but the experience at the window is really no different ultimately they have to go to the window to pay those taxes and that is the rule and and we expect compliance you know and the operators expect compliance so i'm sort of hearing i'm mean of that there's a an appetite to consider taking this off and we'll see it tomorrow and in the red line right missionaries is that fair yes that's fair okay excellent thank you really good discussion and it was really helpful to me commissioner manor to have you um have that experience at that plane bill or plane bridge because it it made sense what i saw at on course so thank you all right mean um this is why this is an important discussion thank you so much what should we go on to the next one uh sure happy to um and i know you have a 130 stop on the calendar for today so i just want to make sure that we have a couple more of these we can we can probably get through fairly quickly but if there are other matters you need to take up madam chair i didn't want to go pass those nope i think it's really important to get through these comments okay thank you so 238 44 3 is a proposal from mgm to change the reference to medium risk to high risk in the cvss uh vulnerability so cvss is a common vulnerability scoring system it's basically a recognized way to make sure that software and hardware are not vulnerable to network security risks they have not provided an explanation here and and obviously we would want to be on the more protective side so we were not proposed requiring control of only high risk activity but also medium risk 238 44 3 b would be a corresponding change if you accepted 44 3 so again um apps and some justification for why medium risks should be acceptable i would not recommend changing this and we have consulted of course with gli on all these so that's that's a shared perspective from from our experts 238 45 2 um to um it has to do with um the ability of a sports wager it was really the employer agent of a sports waging operator to divulge personal identifiable information it's a limitation on that uh an operator has requested that um uh broadening this to include other information including a confidential proprietary information of the operator uh while i certainly understand that concern these internal controls are really meant to protect patrons in this case certainly employment policies hr policies internal security policies can require that that seems to be an internal matter between an operator and their employees that is less the interest of the commission so we would not recommend broadening it to that that's not the commission's role for for enforcement mina did you skip over 238 44 3 b um commissioner skinner that one is would be a slight wording change that would only be necessary if you change the cvss category in the fire recommendation so they're sort of take took those two together um 238 48 1 a was a um a proposal and a question this has to do with um actually topic we just discussed tangentially um redemption of or or um how tickets that made last over time matter um they are um asking to be able to um to transfer money on an annual basis um as i understood the comment um as opposed to uh you know one year out after they were done um so this is sort of it's i think the idea of the comment again we don't have much of a description here at least is um i apologize that we there may be background comments but this is this is all i have um is to transfer to the sports wager and control fund um you know just kind of once a year i don't know that i don't think that's consistent with the purpose of the statute which is to do it after one year uh it also is possible um but that might cause for instance something to be out there for effectively a year and 360 days for instance um as opposed to transferring within the year so that that doesn't seem necessary and and assuming sufficient automation this could be done on a regular basis um 238 483 um is a similar request would be to remove um the payment within the preceding month of those fees so right now um when you get the month monthly report uh um to the commission they the operator would also provide a check for the amounts that need to go to the sports wager control fund um it would simply remove getting that um amount for the preceding month again it seems best for the commission and the commonwealth to be getting that on a regular basis so we recommended rejecting that can anyone speak with um cf 11 on these these two um i am trying to remember directly now uh kaitlyn you can correct me from wrong but i believe he was part of the broader conversation when we went through this whole set of comments on 238 because they touched so many different aspects um in fact it was basically uh everybody on the screen that was not a commissioner was was in that meeting all the staff and most illegally i don't know i think that's right so derrick is not on the screen sorry he was there so that was uh that was a poor way to describe that because i was looking for him so um i'm sorry about that mean it didn't mean to put you on the spot but i was looking to see if he was going to chime in and i was looking for page two of our screen but we are just taking one page of today i will say finance finance in the iab and um and it will all part of this conversation on all of 238 so so we know derrick's we got derrick's feedback on these comments at the time thank you okay let's move on and get started on um 205 247 if there's nothing else uh commissioners and i know we have about seven minutes or so i yes so i'm gonna kick it over to paul uh on this one good morning good afternoon paul good afternoon madam chair commissioners 205 cmr 247 begins on page 157 as a reminder this regulation addresses how the commission permits or prohibits wagering on certain events or uncategories of events how operators accept accept wagers on events or tournaments contests or pools how operators run promotions uh how they adopt house rules and related matters there are only two proposed substantive edits to this regulation and then nine or so additional comments i will start with the two substantive edits and then address the comments there are a handful of more technical tweaks that i'm not planning to bring up proactively but that i'm of course available to answer questions on it's the first substantive edit appears near the bottom of page 158 of your packet we are recommending this language to respond to a commenters a member of the public i should say concerns about past versions of house rules being available to the user to users so they can understand how house rules are changing over time uh questions on that commissioners i'll set on that i'll set on that i'm glad to see that that's been incorporated it's it's the comment that stood out to me in this particular set yeah um skipping ahead of ways the next substantive edit appears uh towards the bottom of page 171 so the provision that's being marked up here uh 247 092 requires operators to fully disclose the terms of their promotions in any advertisement for the promotion we require quite extensive disclosure here and a comment from bedmgm raised concerns that this is simply impossible in a number of standard fora rather than inspiring fights about what constitutes a readable font size in an online banner ad we think it's reasonable to relax the requirement that all materials the all material terms appear on the face on the face of the ad as long as the terms remain no more than one click away um given that we've adapted language from virginia that allows operators to provide a hyperlink to a website containing all of the material terms uh and it's worth noting that this only will affect online advertising won't affect print ads billboards radio so i mean there is at least one other jurisdiction that basically says if it can't all be together then that's not the medium to offer the promo in i don't know if i'm thinking of main or ohio uh i don't know the answer to that off the top of my head i'm afraid okay yeah if you guys could i'll try to look it up tonight too but there was a i and it may be it's main that's out for comment right now but they basically took the approach that if you can't capture it and know exactly what the promo was um then that's not the medium to put the promo out there in so that people don't get confused about what they're what they thought they were getting so just in this discussion for tomorrow i would want to know and i don't want to say it was either ohio or main probably main i can i can look into that for tomorrow okay thanks do any of the new comments address this one no the new the new comments on 247 don't don't cover this thanks there are no additional comments on that and i will be ready to address the main and ohio's regulations tomorrow the comments pick up on page 174 can we just read this on a little bit just to get them just again some comments madam chair pardon me is the request to go back over i'm reading um your subsection subsection two again just to given the little bit of discussion we've had so if the material terms of a promotion cannot be fully and accurately disclosed within the constraints of a particular advertising medium and you're saying within the constraints that's actual physical constraints right material terms of conditions shall be accessed by hyperlink that takes the individual directly to the material terms or directs the individual to the site access to promotional offer terms and in reasonably prominent size but not necessarily in accordance with our other rules that the issue is our other font rule that's coming into play here how is that what you said this pardon me i should i should compare this i should refresh myself on how this interacts with a related restriction in 256 i don't believe that this change 256 the advertising 256 is advertising i believe that this change fits with fits comfortably with the change 256 this was simply prompted by a bet mgm comment that raised concerns about their ability to cover certain to advertising certain for that we think it is that we think it is probably reasonable to impose slightly more forgiving standards on we can we'll be looking at this tomorrow commissioners see it's 130 maybe mark and then should take a look to just make sure that they're interacting i just can't tell if it has to do with content or font size probably all i know is ultimately the operators are responsible well so i can clarify that point it has to do with the disclosure of it has to do with the disclosure of the terms of the advertisement if they are required to disclose if they are required to disclose all material terms within the banner ad or within the tweet i expect fights about whether a sufficiently small font size is full and accurate disclosure or whether sufficiently abbreviated description of the terms is full and accurate disclosure commissioners what are you thinking i know we've got to pose out this meeting on this issue anything michelle brian so this is the concern that i have then maybe it's not the medium for them to be pushing that promotion if it's not something where it can be obvious and prominent the way we've asked them to be in the other forms maybe it's not the right way to be pushing the promo that's where i'm coming from yeah we just haven't heard this complaint except for one and i shouldn't say complaint comment really right we're only hearing from one so it's interesting to me because we we did hear quite quite a few when with respect to at least the implications on billboard advertising but let's chew on this tonight and any further insights that you can get from the operators as to what we might be missing and understand would be helpful we'll also check on 256 of the comments that we've received so far on 256 oh okay thank you that's a good idea all right okay so that leaves paul with that's the last change in that reg and then you'll walk us through the public comments here which are again pretty extensive but it's really important for the commissioners to get the insight so um walk through them tomorrow have a chance to look at them again tonight and then we'll turn kary to 248 and then our voting is that right yep we'll take up 248 and then we'll revisit um and the the ones what we've already discussed today for any new comments that came in this morning and if i'm right we've now marked up Wednesday to possibly include discussion on the um 234 and 256 those the um intersection of those but it may well be that we we do end up turning to that discussion and vote on Thursday direct executive director miles is that the right scenario yeah i'm just looking here at it looks like 234 and 236 was there an amendment to take it off for tomorrow i um it was amended to take it off and then i had asked legal to restore as a possibility in the event that okay our two days um discussion on these regs would end early it looks like we're you know getting through this but i just don't know at the end of tomorrow what all the teams help we were able to post the meeting uh plenty of time for Thursday and that does include that 234 and 256 so that's that's set to go so maybe um Wednesday didn't get amended by chance is that what i don't know i'm just looking at the one that's attached to the um attached to the agenda i'm not sure what was posted on the website i think that there might have been a date but i'm just checking the the the one that's attached to the to the outlook invite is is older the one that's posted on the website includes the third the regs so we're all good yeah so we couldn't we could at least begin it or we could just say let's move it right to Thursday and get our heads wrapped around that discussion but legal if you could be ready on that discussion as well okay commissioners do we have anything else right now that we need to address are we all right with um i think i i i know that there's a hard um i'm assuming that the hard time limit is is one that we're sticking to i have i i wasn't really rising up the scheduling but i'm assuming that we should conclude now i'm turning to legal team i i don't i'm not sure of the answer to that this was the time frame i was given by Trudy that you are all available so that's why it was scheduled for this time frame commissioners yeah it's perhaps if the commissioners are available to keep going that may eliminate some anxiety tomorrow finishing up on time but it's ultimately just up to the commission i i'm not i think Trudy might have inherited that as well so um so my hard stop is two o'clock for what it's worth well maybe okay so why don't we see if we can just finish this up one up does that make sense let's just try to finish it i don't know if anybody else has anything but no i'm waiting to hear it's fine if you do no i can go to two o'clock for sure okay let's do that then all right let's just see if we can get through paul and then with the understanding we probably need to revisit this change madam chair i need i need one second uh to tell uh somebody that i need to push back uh conversation it's it's it's the commoners that's okay oh maybe he was the hard stop that's okay then paul that's fine we can we can roll it over let's do that this is this is a meeting that can be moved i think it would be good to get through 247 and one piece to the extent that we can um i just need a second email to send this email i have to say i was just momentarily distracted by a baby picture just a little transparency that's a good distraction um the one other thing i will say about uh this 247092 is that uh it would be very easy to it would be very easy to maintain the status quo all we would be doing is not adopting the highlighted language mr maynard are you leaning in i just leaning in um commissioner skinner is away from the computer so i she may want to hear that i'm here i can hear everything thank you though commissioner maynard appreciate that so the comments will pick up on page 174 this first comment from bed mgm uh they correctly observed that we had dropped the word transaction we asserted we included the word transaction and that's one of the technical edits um that i didn't highlight uh the next comment is the comment from bed mgm on 24709 that we will return to tomorrow the next comment begins the bottom of page 176 and continues through page 177 that is the comment asking for us to require old versions of past rules to be made available the first comment that we did not adopt changes in response to uh if you're ready begins on page 177 so this is a comment from a member of the public broadly encouraging the commission to approve certain classes of e-sports events for sports wagering and to identify certain entities as e-sports sports governing bodies body equivalents the input is appreciated and we certainly encourage the commission to review this comment um when approval of e-sports events is up but we didn't see that any amendments to the regulation were called for in response to this comment questions to poll on that one yeah so thanks next few comments pick up at the bottom page 178 this first uh two-part question from bed mgm uh is asking for clarification about what kinds of about whether operators can offer bets on uh collegiate events that are dependent on the performance of a single player the answer is no i believe we attract the language of the statute closely here so there's so we don't see any call for clarification within the regulation um the second is about what kinds of bets they can host on collegiate tournaments um again i think we're we're tracking the language of the stat the language and structure of the statute pretty well here uh the specific answer to their that question is as long as the conference tournament meets the definition statutory definition of a collegiate tournament they i believe they can place that back um the next comment requests clarification on whether collegiate tournament means uh collegiate tournament inside the commonwealth outside the commonwealth or both we think it's clear that the absence of any location based qualifier means either so we don't recommend revision so the next comment comes from a member of the public zoomed out the suggestion is that the commission can strain operators ability to limit the individual the amount that individual players major i'm not sure that the proposed changes necessary for sufficient to accomplish that result and if we did accomplish that result it would i think it would be a major policy change uh or the the operators may very well see it as such as a result we don't recommend um addressing this issue in response to a comment on the emergency regulations that hasn't been put itself put out for where the change itself hasn't been put out for public comment so the next comment is going to begin at the bottom of page 181 again from a member of the public the second section of the regulation that this comment addresses requires that certain information be visible to the general public and the comment recommends adding user specific information so we do not recommend adopting the comment the next comment uh pertains to requests by sports governing bodies or players associations to limit uh wagering on particular events currently the commission must give operators a chance to comment on such requests that is a reasonable under the circumstances the comment asks that operators have a minimum of seven days that will limit the commission's ability to respond to emergency requests which we don't view as acceptable uh the next comment asks us to instruct operators not to retain personally identifiable information for longer than is lawful uh we appreciate the spirit of this comment but we do not recommend adopting it because it is already unlawful to retain PII for longer than is lawful um the remaining comments uh are comments on the theme that um Mina described earlier requests to insert uh qualifiers in one case and knowingly mens rea standard for violations and in the second case a reasonable limit reasonable nest limitation on the commission's right to disapprove of data sources uh for the same reasons that we generally recommend rejecting these requests we recommend rejecting these requests and that is all the comments on 205 CMR 247 tonight i can i missed a couple my pardon me uh there is the my in my notes i skipped over um this comment from bedroom jam at the bottom of page 182 of that virtual yes thank you thanks so this um responds actually to all to an old version of the regulation that was and the language that they're asking us to change was actually changed in the original adoption of 247 and for the avoidance of doubt you know their concern is that uh uh events determined by random number generators may not be verifiable events determined by random number generators must still be verifiable so yeah so that makes sense to me pal we've disposed of that yeah anything else for following these comments went through them swiftly but we can all pause and go back for any clarifications michelle brine are you all set okay great miss your hill miss your scanner i'm good okay commission major i'll set all right then i think this probably makes sense caron to stop here we'll turn to the few outstanding issues that came up then we'll go we have to go through the new comments that are perhaps it's good to go through the new comments that became to the ones we've reviewed and then um we would go on to 240 47 that right 48 48 sorry that 248 and then and that would include both the old and any new comments and um i know that we i think there's several that pertain to 254 as well so we should probably start with the new comments and then we'll get to a place where we can vote on all those and then we'll see if we turn to the the discussion on the 234 and 256 all right questions make sense good all right well some no commissioner updates at this time okay then a team thank you thank you particularly to the legal team and to anderson and kreger for all your expertise today everybody's done such a great job so thank you kary kaitlyn i know that judy and yin are there and Todd's somewhere as well so we thank all of you so much it's not just the um thinking there's so much organization and that's a lot of work so thank you that's a huge skill set that um we probably don't praise enough or thank you all for for that so thank you so much all right then i'll need a motion to adjourn move georgia thanks commissioner hill second thank you commissioner skinner all right mr ryan hi that's mr hill hi mr skinner hi mr maynard all right and i vote yes five zero we'll see everybody tomorrow same time tomorrow is we have agenda first right oh yeah i think it's a 1115 so we had a little break between uh the agenda setting meeting and the public meeting so it's marked up for 1115 yeah so the um our agenda setting meeting which of course is a different sort of public meeting is at 10 and then we'll we'll reconvene this ongoing conversation so thanks everyone have a good day thank you