 Let's get started then. Okay. You're good. Excellent, thank you. So good afternoon. This is a convening of Massachusetts Game and Commission. We are continuing a conversation from yesterday. This is a virtual meeting, so take a little call. Good afternoon, Commissioner O'Brien, and I love your, I love your chair. Commissioner Hill and I have the same mind. I am here. Excellent. And I like the V-neck on you. I've been wondering about the V-neck. There we go. Excellent. And Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon, I am here. You look better in yours than I do mine. Let me just say that. You look far more official than I do, especially with the total X. There we go. And then we have Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. And Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. And we'll officially call the order of public meeting number 440. Today is March 2nd. And before we continue, I want to have Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Hill explain the shirts that they're wearing today. So it is, it's National Problem Gaming Awareness Month. So probably should have done it yesterday, but figured we would do the Game Sense T-shirts showing solidarity and true confessions. I can't remember the numbers that are on my sleeve. I know Commissioner Hill has a much better memory for it. 421. 421, yep. The 421 is on the back and we have the 1-800 game line. So for those who need some help, 1-800-GAM-1234. We'll get you some assistance. This is our new uniform for those that are at Game Sense. And it's people already know that right in our casinos and they're there to help anybody who may need some help in regards to problem gaming. And yes, yesterday was the kickoff of the month and today we do show our solidarity with this division of our commission and proudly wearing it today. Excellent. And the 421, I know Mark is there, but it's up to four days a month, right Mark? No more than two types of gaming. Correct. And no more than 1%. Right? Yeah. Thank you all. I really appreciate that. It's really touching. National Problem Gambling Awareness Month is an important event that the commission has marked now for a number of years, for every year that we've been around. And it's a good reminder that we do need to pay attention to gambling related harms. This commission does pay attention to gambling related harms. You see it woven throughout our mission, our regulations, our statutory obligations. And so thank you so much for wearing that. I appreciate it. I'm really touched. Yeah. And it's designed by Game Sense, those shirts were designed by a Game Sense advisor. And of course they reflect the new entry of sports wage rates, though. All right. And Mark, I'll remind you that the Gaming Commission has adopted voluntary self-exclusion for sports wagering as well right out as we approach the March 10th launch date. So thank you to your division, Mark. And I know that your team is hard at work. So thank you so much. They really are. Thank you. All right. So we'd get started returning to the conversation that we were having yesterday. And I'll just remind folks, there was a motion and Commissioner Skinner, thank you so much. She moved and I'll turn to her next. She made a motion and she was kind enough to withdraw because I had a practical question around whether there would be any implications for either the third party affiliate, the advertising marketing industry or our operators. And so you withdrew your motion, Commissioner Skinner, and I appreciate that. It was a complete practical question. And I asked Secretary Director Wells if she could reach out to the operators. And in turn, I did hear back from Mr. Iqra, who was on our round table, who represents the third parties, that third party affiliates that are in front of us on our round table on Monday, that have collected USA, Catina Media and TVC America, and he submitted a letter. So I'll turn to Commissioner Skinner first to just remind folks of the motion that you had made. And that would give us the context of that. And again, I want to thank you for that flexibility, Commissioner Skinner asked. Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. So I move that in accordance with... Actually, before we actually do the motion itself. This is just to repeat what she said. Right, because I did want to speak on one of the questions in particular, Commissioner Skinner, you had it yesterday. And I just wanted to make that information clear before we move into motions. Oh no, can I just... I guess I want to be clear, Commissioner Skinner, I was just asking if you could remind everyone what you did move. Oh, and not read the actual motion. Not to read the motion. So that you know, we'll have our full some discussion. If you don't, I just want to make sure everybody knows where we left, because you were very kind to withdraw just at that moment. So thank you. Thank you, that's clear. So after lengthy discussion, I am of the mind that with respect to the regulations 205CMR256, we should as a commission. And when we take a vote, we will determine whether you all are in agreement. But offer a waiver, the opportunity for a waiver to all of the sports wagering operators and marketing affiliates with respect to the CPA agreements, as well as the revenue share agreements. So essentially, the motion that I had put forth yesterday would keep the language as is in the regulations 256. But it would offer the opportunity for a waiver to be granted to individuals who are intending to enter into either one of those agreements relative to marketing. And I think you had a deadline in mind that the waiver would sunset at a certain time. April 14th, as I understand it, and that date was given to us by our legal counsel, I understand that there is some filing with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Office that might be tied to that date. And it was that deadline that made me prompt me to say, I wonder if that affects their contractual arrangements at all, it was strictly a practical question. And that's where we had, I asked the Secretary of the Rows for some input. Before I turn to you, Commissioner O'Brien, I'm going to ask Secretary of the Director of Rows could update us on that. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I did retell to all the operators, I did get some response. Obviously, it was late in the day when I was able to send that out yesterday. But as far as the responses I got, I won't be specific to each of the operators, just I'm not sure if there's any potential for competitively sensitive information on the association. But two of the operators indicated they wouldn't be using affiliates, so it was irrelevant to them. One of them indicated that it would be disruptive to do this now. Another indicated that it would be actually helpful to do the waiver. And then a third, although they do use affiliates, they only use two and they said they were neutral, really didn't make any operational difference to them one way or the other. Thank you. And then from- There was one more, pardon me, there's one more that's not launching right next Friday, but that's one of the ones that said they have no affiliates, just to make sure that's clear. Okay, excellent. And then from Mr. Ifrah, who again, he participated in our round table. And we thank him and his colleagues for helping us understand the industry a bit better. He did indicate, and we made sure that the commissioners have a copy of this letter that they would support the waiver, that it's essential. It would be the waiver, as Commissioner Skinner said, put both the CPA and revenue share at this time. And that in terms of the deadline that they would be able to have no problem amending the agreements, that additional guardrails were put in place as at the time of April 14th. And that was really my very, very basic practical question. Might be both the lawyer and me, but I just wanted to make sure we didn't create some kind of a practical problem. So with that, we've got a little bit of, sounds like a little bit of input from all directions, from the executor Duvall's and from the affiliates themselves. So before we go on, I know Commissioner O'Brien, you're eager to contribute. So let's hear your from you, and then we'll go around the commissioners. Sure. Thank you. That's actually helpful to me in terms of, I am still of the mind of, I'm not convinced on revenue share. And I wanted to speak a little bit more as to why I was trying to inform myself about the push versus the pull and got a little more of an education on CPM and CPC, cause per thousand imprints and cause per clicks, which is the push saturation advertising. And I reached out to Brianne and said, am I correct that the cause per acquisition model would have the, a deterrent effect on that type of push marketing. And in her opinion, that was an accurate statement, not necessarily the same can be said of the revenue share. And again, looking at other states like again, New York moving in our direction and we're contemplating moving away. I'm not convinced that we should be dropping the ban on that, but I absolutely don't think there's reason in the next five weeks to do it, given that's not really going to necessarily have the impact we're looking for on the push marketing. For what it's worth also from our research perspective and a controlled entry perspective, we're coming up with a research and responsible gaming research agenda. And to me, if we did anything, it would be only to do the cause per acquisition model. And then we have the ability to see, is it really doing what we wanted it to do, which is driving down the push marketing and doing what we thought it was going to do. And so to introduce both to me, actually loses a research opportunity for us as an agency to see what is the real impact of the method of advertising and affiliates. In terms of the information, Madam Chair, that Karen just gave us for the operator's perspective on this with all due deference to the perspective of the affiliates. My job isn't to make the affiliates money. My job is to maximize the profit and minimize the risk and the commonwealth. And you've got operators who are saying they're either not using it or an equal measure saying it's helpful and disruptive. Given that, I'm of the mind that there's no reason to do this in the next five weeks. I think we should leave the band where it is. But to the extent this commission as a body or as a majority is moving toward considering a waiver, I would strongly urge it to restrict to the cost per acquisition only. I don't see the reason in the next five weeks to be putting a waiver out there on a rev share model, where that's where I think the stat that I was given in the UK, something like 90% of the money comes from 5% of the players, which to me is probably a pool of big players and people who are addicted and shouldn't be playing. So that's where I'm coming from in terms of when we closed yesterday and as we sit here today, that's the information I got and the posture that I'm in right now. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Somebody else wanna lean in right now? I think I'll put this out for discussion. If I recall correctly, we heard from the gaming associates and that was Kevin Garnett, Mr. Garnett, was kind enough to submit a letter to the gaming commission representing the gaming society. And then we had the co-founder, Ms. Messler, who actually served on the round table for us and we appreciate very much their voice. My understanding that the rev share comes into consideration, maybe more so for smaller operators and smaller companies and that might include MBEs. I had, when we were putting together the round table, I thought it was important to have the voices of the smaller affiliates. And I did mention that I really wanted some diverse representation and we heard from them, I think, and I can be corrected here by anybody, that the rev share might be applying to those who are newer to the market because they have not yet formed enough of an experience in business to be able to really thrive with just the CPA. Does that ring true to anyone else in my making that up? No, that's my memory of the conversation. I would point out that it's commented that they wanna shift toward rev share in the States. So I found that a little strange that I think there's a bunch of different people that use rev share, but their representation that newer entrants into the market would be more able to do that than CPA, that's my memory of the conversation. Yeah, that was my, so that's why yesterday I kind of led with, I understand that I think Commissioner O'Brien has mentioned like 90% of the marketing affiliates rely on CPA. That's why I thought if there's any concern about revenue sharing that we might look at the other States practice where the higher heightened licensure offsets concern. Anyway, I turned commissioner, main commissioner Hill, commissioner Skinner. I just wanted to throw out that competing piece in my mind to what Commissioner O'Brien is saying. Commissioner. Madam Chair, thank you. I think Mr. Garnett, his letter and his associate coming to the round table and making a real push for folks who weren't initially in the industry or entering the industry. And that was really informative to me. On top of that, I share Commissioner O'Brien's general worry. And I do think, and we did mention this yesterday in the conversation, that I would be totally supportive of a heightened licensure model and a heightened model that made sure that we got the information that we need. I did talk to director Vanderland and last night briefly about some of the issues that can come with both models and how the push does relate to the pull and vice versa. And so I think where I would come on this is, and I hear what Commissioner O'Brien's saying about New York, I've also been told by a few of the team members that Connecticut may be doing going the other way, at least looking at softening. So I think that a lot of people are still trying to figure this out, they're trying to figure out where to land. I would take an approach that was somewhere in between where you had a heightened licensure for the revenue sharing, but that on the cost per acquisition model, we let it play out. And then we adjust as we get more information. And I think that Mark and his team, and we talked about this last night too, we'll get a lot of information the next six months to a year, to two years, and we've been nimble and we've been willing to adjust. And so that's how I would kind of look at this. Commissioner Skinner. I'm thinking similarly to Commissioner Maynard. The only thing that's changed really for me between yesterday and today is like you, Madam Chair, I feel a lot better about the proposal that was on the table via the motion yesterday in terms of impact to the affiliates and the operators. In addition to that, I am more comfortable coming to the conclusion that the heightened licensure for revenue share agreements, excuse me, marketing affiliates who utilize the revenue share arrangement, I'm of the mind that there should be a heightened level of licensure. And I understand that as we move through 234, whether that's today or in the coming weeks, prior to April 14th, that we may very well do that and also implement additional guardrails to address some of the concerns, particularly Commissioner O'Brien's concerns that I think we might all share. I'm gonna stick with my position, the position that I made clear yesterday, again, with just a more definitive opinion as to whether or not there should be a heightened level of licensure applied to the marketing affiliates engaging in revenue share. I still feel like there is some, a lot of information that needs to be uncovered relative to the push aspect of revenue share. A question that I have that's still outstanding is, are there marketing affiliates who engage in push advertising rather than the poll? If that's, I just, I wanna explore, I just wanna explore that a little bit more in terms of really understanding who we're targeting here in our regulations as they're currently written. And so by a waiver through the April 14th date now that we're hearing kind of a neutral response on impact who would get some data over the course of 45 days, Commissioner Skinner that you think would be helpful for you. I'm hoping so, yes. Patricia Hill. The good thing about going last, Madam Chair, is everything has already been said that needs to be said. And I am in the corner of Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Skinner and everything that they have said, so it doesn't need to be repeated. But I am still in the same way thinking as I was yesterday and would move forward that way today. So the difference I'm hearing and I offer this as really not an indicator of my position one way or another, but the difference I'm hearing perhaps is that Commissioner Skinner is thinking of entertaining perhaps that heightened standard. Are you thinking of that for April 14th? Are you thinking of that for now? I mean, this meeting is scheduled until three. I don't know what our legal team is prepared to respond to in terms of that discussion in the IEP team. But whether it's today or at a future meeting prior to April 14th, I think that we do need to adjust those regulations, 234 regulations that speak to vendor licensure to account for that heightened level of licensure for marketing affiliates. So let's, is that a good segue to turn to Director Lillios? Maybe we start with IEP and the licensing process. Does that make sense? Commissioner Skinner? For some, yesterday, Chair did a great job updating us and but Director Lillios, maybe you've all had a chance to convene on this topic further any update that you want to provide with respect to, and here's Chief O'Brien now too. Good afternoon, Kara. Director Lillios? Yes, we did get a chance to connect this morning. So I think what you're asking me, Chair, is if the waiver is allowed, now what would the Licensing Division's plan be? Is that what you're asking? If I can, and Commissioner Skinner weigh in and other commissioners, but I'm thinking maybe that's the first and the second, if there were considerations for heightened licensure for those that do need to concentrate on revenue sharing, what are your thoughts about that? If any, and then how would it impact you practically? Okay, so in terms of if there were a waiver now, Kara and her licensing team are in a position that they would be able to intake some reduced application material from the affiliates in question, because it's important that we acknowledge who they are, that they provide the attestations that have been required for other vendors who have temporary credentialing. And she would be able to accommodate that, of course, assuming the prompt participation by the companies themselves, but her team would be able to intake that and intake the appropriate attestations under the condition that they'd be continued cooperation for like administrative completeness reviews after the go live date, but she has a process that she could intake application materials from these companies. In terms of the licensure level, certainly the licensure versus the registration level licensure as part of the routine protocol, we do a scoping of the company, which means that we have more look into the various entities involved and we have the opportunity to identify those C-suite individuals involved as well. So as a routine matter, that insight is part of the routine protocol. For registration, it's very focused on the company that is directly doing business with the operator. So we do not routinely look at the corporate structure, look at the individual organizational chart. There is some discretion that we would be able to do that with the registration, but it's not part of the built-in protocol. Whereas the licensing protocol, that is a built-in protocol for us. Is that helpful? Commissioner, what about timing? Cause that's one of my other concerns quite frankly with rev share as opposed to just a waiver on the CPA model is. I absolutely, if that's gonna go forward with on heightened licensure on rev share and I don't want that short circuited just because we've decided for timing reasons to reach this today. So what timeline does that mean in terms of putting that into effect? So for launch, we'd be relying on attestations the way we have with all the other vendors, okay? For post launch, we can prioritize these with, we do have a more robust temporary licensing protocol that gives us a window into both the license holder entity and the individuals. We have a checklist protocol that has been very effective at red flagging issues. So we could put that into place. And my understanding is that the number of these companies would be quite limited. So I don't think we'd be inundated with a volume that would make it difficult for us to prioritize. And can I ask what the licensing fee is? We would basically have to change the reg, right? To make reference to a particular level, right? And then what are the tiers in terms of the license application fee that already exists? Yeah, the existing, it's a $5,000 fee at the registrant level. And the registrants do not pay for their investigative costs. At the licensure level, it's a $15,000 fee and they do pay the investigative fees and costs. And do you have a ballpark on the investigation's cost on the registrant? Who does pay for that? It's part of, I mean, I guess, technically, I didn't wanna ask Derek, but I think it's part of the actual assessment, you know? So if someone doesn't use an affiliate, they're paying for the background vetting of registrants they don't use as part of the assessment. I don't wanna get over my skis with, that's my understanding. I can confirm that with our finance team. But we do not feel back for those registrants. Mr. O'Brien, could you ask your question again, please? So my question was with the licensing, they pay the $15,000 fee, they are also then charged for the investigative costs. For the registrants, they pay the $5,000 fee, but all of the background investigative costs, they are not charged for that, which means someone else has to pay. And we're looking for confirmation from Derek, but Loretta's understanding is those would then be divided amongst the licensees and levied as part of the assessment that they would get. So you have two licensees coming forward, saying we don't use affiliates, but under that process, I'm just realizing they're gonna get billed as part of an assessment for a clearing third party market affiliate registrants that they don't use. So I'm curious about that part of it. Because another deterrent, quite frankly, in fly-by-net operators may be to say, we're gonna charge you for the investigative cost on registrants for the affiliates. It is many. It would only be over the 5,000 that would be charged. Right? So if the investigation is about $4,999, there's no impact to the other operators. And if it costs less than the 5,000, then... That goes into a pool. Right, impacts the ones that don't use them. Kara, do you want to weigh in at all? I think Loretta and I, as she indicated earlier, touched base on this. And I think having whatever the path forward is, where the licensing division is ready to intake is necessary. Director Lillius, I don't want to be on the spot, because I don't know the answer to this question. And it's okay if you just haven't... Did you have the opportunity to speak with any other jurisdiction that does look at this from a heightened perspective? Yes, we did. Our team met with a few other jurisdictions. And yes, we are aware of other jurisdictions that do divide it up into a couple. And I think at least one jurisdiction has several different levels. And another jurisdiction, it does fall at the registrant level. And largely it was based on perceived risk of that around RGE type issues and vulnerable population type issues. And you know, that's... So yes, we have done that. We have spoken to them about the types of things they look for in their investigations that they find helpful. So we feel from an investigative point of view that we could hit the ground running with fine-tuning our protocol, knowing that we're constantly adjusting where necessary. But we feel like we got some input from a few other jurisdictions. Thank you for that. Chris, if you have questions for Director Lillio, Sir Chief O'Brien. Okay, now we'll turn to our legal team, Tom Comner, and Caitlin Monahan, and Todd Grossman. I don't know. I don't see Carrie today, but I don't mean us hanging out. Other thoughts? We've got the whole team. Yeah. I think procedurally, it would make sense for the Commission to make a decision on the initial question of whether there's going to be a waiver for the CPAs and or rev sharing. And once that decision is made, we can move over into the vendor reg and look at that language because the vendor reg language is contingent on that initial decision. Right. So have you any thoughts on... We've heard the various policy discussion. Do you have any thoughts in terms of the implications for the industry? Nope. Just happy to help figure out how to implement whatever you would like to do. So it does seem like we're a little inextricably intertwined here though, because if there's a vote to say waiver without the amendments to the reg simultaneously about how we're going to deal with licensing, I mean, they have to be done together really, right? Well, I think let's take it sort of one step because we don't necessarily have to have a vote. We could come to a consensus on what I think Caitlin was saying, the initial policy discussion. And then we could move to the vendor discussion and then we could go back to the actual vote. I think that... I could even say one other thing, Sharer. I apologize, I didn't mean to cut you off. You could vote on the vendor reg and you could include a higher level of registration for rev-sharing. And then if you... Whether or not you decide to allow rev-sharing, fine. If you don't allow it, then that part of the vendor reg you just aren't using at the moment. That's one way to do it too. I kind of feel like we're all just sitting here together. So the process, I think we're going to work it out all right, but just some sort of get some sort of taking the temperature. So let's go back to yesterday's packet includes Mr. Garnett's letter. I just wanted to make sure everybody knew that that was available. I referenced it and I wanted to make sure it was on. I don't know which page I've been looking at, an older one. And then the letter that... The documents that came in with respect to my inquiry around the practical implications, we can make sure those are available to the public as well. In case someone's asking for those, we'll make sure Mel's get that public domain. Mr. Skinner, as I started, you were the one who moved and you were kind enough to withdraw. Today, hearing today's discussion, would you want to... Would you like to move on the same motion? And I defer to you because you were moving pretty yesterday. Well, I think if we've got consensus without a motion, I think that's the better way to go practically. So I don't have to renew that motion. I'm satisfied that there is a consensus. And but I do think... And I'm not sure what the consensus is with. So I'm wondering, is the consensus applying the waiver altogether, period, or is it an amendment to your original motion in light of what I heard? Maybe you were saying, oh, I might want to consider the heightened licensure. So I don't want to put words in your mouth. Are you thinking that you want to wait for that heightened licensure until the 14th? Like yesterday, or do you think you want to adjust that? Well, I'm taking 256 separate and apart from 234 with the understanding that 234 needs a bit of work, I think, to accommodate where we all are or where the consensus is that there should be a heightened level of licensure. But the question I have relative to 234 before we deal with 256 and you get the answer that you're looking for... And I think it's okay for us to... Yeah, is... What's the status of those regulations now? They're not in effect by emergency, is that right? No, it is. So 234 was like the second, the commission took up. So it's fully in effect. So to the extent you would like to take action on it today, you would be moving forward on an amendment to it. An amendment. Yeah, so it extends it, yeah. Okay, it could be done by emergency, right? Correct. And if you wanted it in effect now, you would have to do it by emergency. Right, okay. If we wanted it to apply to launch, we would do it by emergency. Correct. Okay, and that explains the language in the motion for 234, which I was just getting a little bit stumped on. Of course, I'm not looking at the motion, everyone. So you could send the motion to my top of my email box because if that's the guide, I need to be... I'm hoping just a... I'm hoping for a genuine policy discussion among us. So go ahead. Yeah, no, relative to 256, I do think Commissioner O'Brien's right, I mean, they're intertwined. So I wanna make sure that we're all comfortable with the consensus that as I understand it, which is to offer a waiver for both CPA and revenue share. And parallel to that, come up with language in 234 that addresses the higher level of licensure for revenue share. So I don't know how we accomplish that, what the best way to accomplish that would be, but I do think they're hand in hand. So, okay, so that's really helpful. So now we're gonna clarify that consensus, please. So I clarify that consensus, please, just so that it's clear on the record. We're not taking a vote, but just so we're clear, if we're gonna have rev share, like I said before, I absolutely am in agreement that there should be the height and licensure requirements for it. So if we're going in that direction in the amendment, I'm absolutely for that. But just so we're clear, I think it should be done in the normal course. I don't think we should be giving waivers on the rev share right now. So just so the consensus is clear on the record, I'm not in agreement on the rev share at all. And I understand that. And I think that would mean if we did not include revenue share in the waiver, that would mean that from March 10th, the March 10th launch, those smaller businesses would not be able to engage with the sports waiting operators. Well, that's the only concern that I have. We don't know if that actually applies to anybody who's in the queue. We don't know. I thought that our, yeah. No, I was just going to say, I thought that the participant on Monday at the round table, we had at least one. Well, they said it would be difficult but I didn't know that they were actually in queue. I'm going to just ask for a little order, everyone. Everyone's just slow it down a bit. So I want to have everyone finish their thoughts. Commissioner Skinner, federal commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Skinner. I was just trying to confirm my recollection. And I think someone did that. I see commissioner Maynard nodding. Is that the participant on Monday was an entity or vendor that utilized the revenue share agreement. So I am under the impression that there's at least one of those entities that will be impacted. Should we not lift the waiver across the board? But I think commissioner O'Brien had a different take. Well, because I don't think anybody has those affiliate agreements yet because they're not lawful on the Commonwealth. So right now, nobody falls in that category. There could be the potential that the individual from the company on Monday becomes that individual, but right now it's not like there's somebody with paperwork in at IEB that would require us to act today for us to flip a switch. Now they may variable get their paperwork in if rev shares allowed, but it's not like there's a pile of ex people who have actual signed affiliate agreements with any licensees at present under either model because it's not allowed under the current rate. Yeah, understood, but it's the potential deprivation of that vendor from the opportunity to join in this industry with the rest of the marketing affiliates that would concern me. If we didn't do it across the board. And I understood that was your position yesterday. Make sure that we weren't somehow inadvertently affecting that entry. And so, and of course the elevated licensure could have a, you know, additional failures, right? We're all clear on that. It's just that that's a model that certainly has adopted. I'm turning to Commissioner Hill now and then we'll go back to Commissioner Skinner. Yeah, can I just have a follow up before we get to Commissioner Hill? This doesn't preclude the opportunity for the commission at a later date to decide that it wanted to not have the waiver apply to the revenue share agreements or, you know, maintain its current prohibition on those agreements. This is just kind of leveling the playing field, excuse me, for all of those entities until we get a better understanding, more knowledge of the industry and get a better understanding of how we might want to see this play out in 234. Thank you for that. I'm trying to push for Hill and maybe you're not weighing in. I thought you would turn. The only thing I would add is I don't understand why we wouldn't be, I think we call it bifurcating the issue. In your motion yesterday, you included both. And what I would urge you to do today is separate the two and do two separate motions so that each commissioner would be able to vote their conscious on this moving forward. And know the way I support what you have been saying, this is something we can bring back and talk about and fix as needed once we get some more information. So I'm suggesting because it isn't a consensus on both issues, but there is on one for sure. Chris, I'm sorry, when you say both issues, you're talking about CPA versus red chair. Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. So with that said, I think it's really two different discussions. And yes, we need to be the overall discussion, but I think we've now brought it back down to it should be two separate decisions being made so that each commissioner can vote the way they see fit on those two separate issues. Which later I would also add, you can really separate it up through different ways, right? So you could add the additional if the rev share is passed, then you could put in the heightened licensure as a separate vote that way. I mean, because I heard Commissioner O'Brien and what she said about if it did get through, then she would recommend the heightened licensure. I think we all probably I'm hearing that we all probably would recommend the heightened licensure and then just another point and something that Commissioner Skinner, I think is getting at, but I would just like to say it. If you're an operator and you're listening today or you are an affiliate program and you are going to engage in this rev share, don't take advantage of people. Do it for the reasons stated at the round table that we heard on Monday, which was to educate people, do those things. This commission will not tolerate someone trying to bankrupt a consumer. And I think you're hearing it across the board here today. None of us are going to tolerate that. We will change the rules if we have to. But to keep us from doing that period, do what you say you're going to do. So can I add a little bit of even a nuance? It could be rev share with the heightened license, rev share without, I'm of course hearing Commissioner O'Brien but I just don't want to make any assumptions here. I think there's a consensus that rev share and the heightened license may go hand in hand. I just don't want to make any assumptions sick. Now I'm going to turn to our, the technical aspect of this, because I can see Caitlyn going, boom, boom, boom. So what I'm guessing, this is my question, Caitlyn. If, and I know this is what I was struggling with yesterday that regulations often don't come with sunset provisions. I know we have one out there and it's kind of driving me a little crazy. I can't remember which practice out there that has a sunset. It's the suitability. It's whether you can claim preliminary suitability and operate before you get final. We only get it for launch purposes. That will sunset the fall. Thanks, I spoke to Commissioner O'Brien about this earlier and she did her homework for me. So thank you so much. So we do have one outfit that we need to keep track of. So I was, you know, it's not ideal because I know the industry offers, everybody who's relying on some certainty from us. But, you know, we begged a little bit of tolerance as we worked through this. And so my question is this, can we, are you hesitant, Caitlyn, to include that April 14th deadline on the vendor reg? And if we were to include a heightened standard for those third party affiliates that engage in revenue share, that it would just be in that vendor regulation for however, until we amended it down the road. And then, but would it be okay to have the waiver with a sunset on the advertising side? Is that weird? Yes. Yeah, I think you've got it exactly right. So we do the waiver on the advertising reg, which is again tied to the sort of promulgation timeline, right? So you'd know for sure that you'd have the waiver at least through April 14th on advertising on vendors. What you would say is if you, if let's say the commission decided today to amend the vendor reg so that third party marketing entities that conduct CPAs are registered, revenue sharing third party marketing entities are licensed, you'd put that into effect today, you'd start the promulgation process. Remember that reg can change all the way through to the final vote. So you're gonna have three months to make any changes for the final reg. You know, it may require a waiver in the middle, but we have some time on the process. So I don't think there's any issue at all with doing the waiver on advertising today and taking a vote to start the promulgation process by emergency on the vendor reg. And it might be helpful when we get to the vendor reg to take a look at it. We would wanna walk through that anyway, but I have no problem on process with that. And thank you to Kerry for sending the emotions to me right at the top. Thank you so much. So it's sort of on the technical side. I think we can work it through. So am I, do we have a consensus that everybody agrees no problem with lifting, waiving the CPAs? We're all in agreement on that. I wouldn't say no problem, but you would have an aye vote for me on that. I should not have said it when you'll, now that there's a consensus to, I should not have said that. Should not, should we could waive our current reg with respect to CPA, the restriction of provision on CPAs through April 14th. Is that where we have all an agreement? Am I hearing it that we would like to maybe move Commissioner Hill's point one at a time and just deal with CPAs? Yes. Okay. If so, are we at a place now on respect to CPAs that we're comfortable moving or do we need further discussion on that? We are ready to move forward. I'm ready to move forward. Commissioners, any other, we'll have a motion and then Commissioner Hill, do you mind if Commissioner Skinner moves on it first? I was not going to move on it. I was just saying I'm ready to move if everybody else. Okay. Again, appreciating of the generosity of yesterday. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. So I think I like the idea of Commissioner Hill on just one step at a time. It's a great idea. I move that in accordance with 205-CMR 202.023, the commission issue a waiver to all licensed sports wagering operators from 205-CMR 256.013 that allows cost per acquisition agreement until April 14th, 2023 as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205-CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purpose of general laws chapter 23N. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Okay, Commissioner Bryan, any clarifiers that you wish to add? No, just that my stance on this is different because for me, my ability to inform myself is this has a positive impact on stamping out saturation and push marketing. And so for those reasons, I'm an eye on that motion. Commissioners, I think I can speak for the rest of us that we understand the implications of the CPA as helping on the issue of around frequency and intensity and push, right? We learned that at the round table. So any other discussion? Okay, Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Mainer. Hi. And I vote yes. 5-0, so there, we took care of that piece. Now. Does it make sense to do the heightened requirement? Well, I'm wondering, can I ask this? Because I think there's consensus on that and it's theoretical. I hear you, I'm wondering, isn't it okay for us to have a motion that acknowledges our policy position and then go into the two technical reg change? In other words, that the motion... If we were to have rev share, it would be subject to a heightened licensing requirement? Right, because I don't want to jump to that conclusion, Commissioner O'Brien, without some process. Unless we just have a strong understanding, sort of that temperature, I want to make sure I haven't jumped to any conclusions there. That at this juncture between now and April 14th, we would, are we all looking to increase that standard? Commissioner Skinner? Okay. And I'd say that Commissioner Skinner, because that wasn't her position yesterday, I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. So, Commissioner Hill, you were also ready to second that. I think you did yesterday. So, all right. Was that that we can go to the technical? And I think Commissioner O'Brien has the right idea that maybe we turn to the vendor and maybe should we turn to the actual document itself? Commissioner just as a reminder of the reg itself. If you all have it. I'd like to see what we're impending. What page in the packet is it? Getting it right now. Would you like to go through the vendor reg all together right now or would you just like to look at that particular section? Are we supposed to be having that on our, is that on our agenda? Thank you. Yes. 280. 280. Oh, I know. 234, right? 234 you're looking for? Yeah. And then I know Paul has been dying to get him in front of us. So I just wanted to make sure we're all set. From our side. Oh, excuse me, sorry. Because I really thought that the discussion on the agenda was limited to the intersectionality of these two. But I'm hearing that it was to update and review the totality of that. Just to clarify, it's page 280 of yesterday's packet. If there's a new packet, I haven't seen it. No, I think it's a, I think it's a whole, it's a rollover from yesterday. Okay. Yeah, I thought so. But I just wanted to clarify. Yeah. And I'm just looking at the old calendar. So I have it. I think I've got them. There weren't any new changes, right? No. Very changes since what was in the packet yesterday. No. Okay. So let's just talk about the intersectionality right now on the vendor. And the advertising. And the application of the heightened standard. Certainly. So for those purposes, I would recommend that the commissioners start on page 282. Which is where most of the work in this respect is happening. So as I said yesterday, there are three things that are really happening in this set of amendments to the regulation. The first is that we are formalizing the IEB's request previously accomplished by waiver of standards that in general, third party marketing affiliates be registered rather than licensed. The second thing is a, is a change to the discipline regulation, which is much further down in the reg, just to bring it in line with 232, the jet, the umbrella discipline regulation. The third thing is peace dealing with the intersect, dealing with heightened licensing requirements for revenue sharing advertisers. Everything that addresses revenue sharing is in yellow highlighting on top of the track changes so that you can clearly distinguish what you would and would not be adopting in order to adopt the licensing standard for revenue sharers. So the trick here is making sure that the, is making sure that this captures all revenue shares and carving it out of the other provisions, lowering the general requirement, the general licensing requirement for marketing affiliates to registration. So what we do is we simply define a new type of service provider called a revenue sharing advertiser in some paragraph F1 as someone who either promotes or directs patrons to sportsway during on mobile applications, which is consistent with how we define marketing affiliates earlier in the proposed amendments, or who regularly hires or recruits persons to do the same because you want to add, you want somebody who doesn't themselves run advertisements, but is coordinating, coordinating advertisements and sharing revenue to be required to be licensed as well. In exchange for a fee paid by the operator, pardon me, that's, there's, I need to tweak the language there. It should say in exchange for a percentage of net gaming revenue earned from users that the entity directs to the operator on that language is not identical to, but is based on the definition of revenue sharing in New Jersey is in New Jersey's guidelines. Paul, can I ask you why, why the use of regularly in there regularly promotes regularly hires as opposed to just promotes and hires. So regularly is in our definition of sportsway during vendor as well. To be a sportsway during vendor, you have to not only provide services that directly relate to sportsway during, but you have to do so on a regular basis. So we, we carried that through to the definition of marketing affiliates. We could, we could take it out of the definition of revenue shares if you want to cover anyone who shares revenue for any length of time. Yeah. So I guess what concerns me with the regularly in this context is it's one thing to have someone who's committed in licensing and, you know, I'm worried about someone saying why don't you need to be licensed because I don't do it regularly. I'm going to do it sporadically. And so I can just be a registrant. I do think we would read somebody who does something sporadically, but on a recurring basis to, to regularly provide services. But I'm wondering what's the downside to it regularly is removed. Who do you capture that you wouldn't want to capture. True one-offs are the people that you would additionally capture if you removed the word regularly. I would defer to the IAB on whether that's a, on whether we see those people, whether it's important to capture them and whether the corresponding workload is reasonable. To me, it's a disincentive. If you can't do it, even as a one-off without being licensed, I actually feel better about rev share, right? Because then you're only going to get the people committed to the market. I'm comfortable using regular, if we've been using regular throughout, but as for the licensing and turning to director Lilios. And we have, you know, Paul indicated that, that is a term that's used in all of our gaming regs as well. You know, I do commission, I'll grind and understand what you're saying. Like you just, you don't even want the one-off. I think we use it in the gaming context to allow the companies operationally to take care of their needs. And when they have the one-offs, it doesn't make sense for us to go through the licensing process because at the time where, you know, finished in taking the application and, you know, they haven't even commenced the investigation, the need has passed. So that's really why in the, we have used that regularly term, kind of coincides with some of the exemptions as well to sort of let them take care of their business needs. And it's a risk-based approach to business that occurs, not on a one-off kind of basis. But understand, you know, the notation that you're using here that, you know, you don't even want the one-off or you want to carry over the regularly. I think we've used it so far to allow some flexibility to the licensees to have their operational needs met. So, but in that context, Lorna, how often are you talking about advertising and marketing versus I need maintenance, I need a slots thing? We're not. I don't think we're talking to date. Yeah. That hasn't been advertised under our service. I guess that's my issue with it is it's a completely different industry. And so I'm not so sure the regularly applies here. What we want to do is only allow Rapshia for committed licensed entities. Commissioner Bryan. The only other point that I would make is that a $15,000 licensing fee plus additional costs of investigation may set a floor on, or may already provide a substantial disincentive to engage in a revenue sharing model on a one-off basis. But only if it applies to them. That's what I mean. It wouldn't apply to them. They would only do a 5K registrant otherwise, right? This says I don't want to. Pardon me. Sorry. The 5K may still be a significant fee for entities that are only coming in on a one-off basis. I don't know. I mean, I'd rather it be more, but obviously. I seem to be the only one. So. I think the last year. Director Lillian says that there's a risk base analysis that occurs. Our. Licensing process. Allow for that one-off. Flexibility. Right. But not in this venue. It's more and other purchasing. Which is very to me is very different than this industry and you know, but, you know, I'm not comfortable with the consistency. Is anybody else, is it comfortable? Are you? We need to rework this language. I'm comfortable with the language, just having, you know. Enforce the regulations as. Chief of licensing not too long ago. enforcing them. I understand the intent of it and I think that IEB's rationale for not requiring licensure for this folks who don't regularly participate in these activities or this industry makes sense because again you know by the time the investigation is completed the vendor will have moved on. I did have a clarifying question. If we're talking about an advertiser who does not regularly participate in the activity and so therefore not required to hold a license, are we capturing that person through a registration? They wouldn't even be required to register, right? That person would be a non-sports way during vendor who would need to be disclosed to the IEB like any other non-sports way. And the IEB would have the option to upgrade them to a registrant depending on the details of the relationship and the specifics of the contract. So is there a way to address what I'm concerned about by making the one-offs registrants? That's what I was trying to get at. Right. Yes, it would take it would take a bit of tweaking to a carve out from the def, so currently revenue sharing advertisers are carved out of the definition of registered marketing, well of marketing affiliates. Right. So for an additional piece of background on the structure of this reg, marketing affiliates would be the only type of entity that is required to be registered in the first instance, as opposed to not required to do anything or required to be licensed, which is why if you scroll up the prior page and a half, there's a lot of infrastructure that's built out to deal with to address the fact that we now have an entity, a type of entity that's registered in the first instance. Because we want revenue sharing advertisers to be licensed by default, they are carved out of the definition of marketing affiliate. I would need to adjust to that carve out in order to ensure that revenue shares could do not operate in the Commonwealth on a regular basis are registered by default. That is not a tweak. We've had to do enough work on the scope of the carve outs and their interplay that I would not be comfortable making that tweak on the fly in this meeting. Well, let's think about that. I'm going to offer a little bit of a counter argument to the tweak. Because first off, is that how it works traditionally with our vendor situation? Practically, it would, if you're not in, you're not expected to licensure and regular, does it come down to non gaming and then it's your judgment to bring it up? Is that how it works? On the casino side, that is how it works. It's a little bit different on the sports wagering side. If they're direct, the vendor is directly related to sports wagering and is regularly doing business, they have to get licensed. Otherwise, the operator has to disclose these non sports wagering vendors and the IEB looks at them with criteria in mind from the regulation and determines who has to be registered. So it's not automatic. It's not automatic. Okay, I'm going to, I just want to, I feel obligated to make this counter. This revenue share that I, I feel I learned over the course of this last week revenue share compensation model is more, it's more likely to be exercised by less experienced marketing affiliates or those who are new to the market in my, and I know that that is perhaps some of the risks that Commissioner O'Brien is thinking about. I also am thinking about those who are new to the space that we want to make sure we don't inadvertently create unfair barriers. And I am thinking our obligation as a commission under our statement of purpose in terms of equity and inclusion. This is a licensing issue that I don't want to necessarily create an additional barrier that could impact communities of color, individuals of color. And what I'm hearing is that if there are one off, I don't want to necessarily make them have to jump through licensure groups. And I'm fairly, if this is how we treat other, other vendors, because that one off experience may allow them to get into the market so that they can start building a business in this sports trading industry. And so I'm comfortable with the risk-based analysis, as long as, you know, our operators give us the notice and Director Lillio, some team looks at it, they can decide if it goes up. And if I understand correctly, that right now the way the market structure really reflects how we have been functioning with vendors that across the board in the gaming world. And we have the structure for the sports trading. We heard from at the roundtable that these smaller businesses need this choice on revenue. I am absolutely cognizant of the risks that Commissioner Algyne is thinking, but I also want to make sure we don't shut down opportunity for valid emerging companies, particularly those that might be owned by minorities, women, BTQ. And so I'm just going to state that I am comfortable with the risk that we're taking here. That's my opinion. That's my position. And I say that intentionally because that's what we have adopted in our inclusion, that we've got to think about inadvertently impacts. So I'll take an encounter arguments on that. I mean, I stated why I would want them to be default into registrants. And while we have a very promising company that was before us on Monday, I think to say that you're necessarily going to get DEI of smaller businesses, I don't necessarily think that that follows. While I hear you and I embrace the concept, I'm not so sure empirically, it's justified by what we've seen. I would rather have the protections in the market, which is also part of the mission statement, protecting the risk and the harm. I would rather have it be default to registrant myself to keep out fly by nights. So that's my perspective on that. I fully hear and appreciate what you're saying. I'm just not so sure that having the default to registrant would really be that much of an impediment on that point. Okay. So, Paul, I understand that if you were to tweak it to favor Commissioner O'Brien's position, you would need a little bit of time with that language. Commissioner, you've heard from both me and Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Skinner, are you meaning it? I am. Thank you. I think your considerations are necessary. I think you're absolutely right. We do not want to impose barriers to small businesses, minority businesses, WEBE, excuse me. I'm wondering, though, just to try to meet in the middle in another way that hopefully might be less onerous for these one-offs, could we somehow take advantage of an exemption process similar to what's offered on the gaming side? So, you know, where there are vendors who might not be engaging in this activity regularly, you know, we could have the default, well, let me back up. We could have the default be that all revenue share vendors are required to register, excuse me, to be licensed. However, offer the opportunity for them to apply for an exemption. It's different from a waiver, but it kind of has the same effect, but they would be given the opportunity, and we can write this in the regs, hopefully, if we agree, to apply for an exemption from the license requirement. And I guess I'm posing that question to Director Lillios. There are some exemptions that you do have exempt, they're called exceptions, and in this reg they are listed on, I've got it on page five. I printed it out, but there are some exceptions, and some of them are just simply automatic. They don't come in as applications for an exemption or requests for an exemption. You know, I think... So, I don't mean to interrupt Director Lillios, but there is a petition process for entities that are vendors to be waived down to either registrants or non-sports wagering vendors and for registrants to be waived down to non-sports wagering vendors. And that's on page 285 of your packet, the paragraph labeled B. We've adapted a version of that for marketing affiliates in general, and we could adapt a version of that for revenue-sharing advertisers as well, as long as we're told what reasons would be permissible for them to waive down. Right. Yeah, do you mean... If I'm good with what we propose, I'm sticking to that, but if we want to, you know, devise a special... This is just, again, through April 14th. Obviously, this is going to go into the bag, and it's going to be... We'll have to unland it after April 14th. Yeah. I mean, I like the idea that Commissioner Skinner put forward, because for me, it addresses the idea that these people will have to come to us in some capacity, and if the capacity is asking for the exemption on the rationale that I'm only doing this one time, so I shouldn't have to do this right now. It allows them on training to the market if they come back again. Obviously, they're not in a position to ask for that anymore, and they would be coming back in a different status. So it would assuage my concern about not having people come in and out without any kind of accountability or... But I do understand. Am I wrong? I want to make sure that we're not saying there's no accountability. Director Lillios, if there's a one-time affiliate that offered a must-dispose, is it correct? Yes, but by the time the IEB could review it to determine whether to require licensure, their service may have been provided. And that's what happens with our vendors now. That's correct. Yeah. And by the way, one second, Commissioner Bride. Our reg in advertising holds the operator responsible for all the content and the activity on this advertising and branding. So if that were not... I guess I'm just saying that's all... I understand we all want to hear each other. I'm trying to get through these regs with some reasonable assessment on risk and fairness. And Commissioner O'Brien, I am hearing you, and I know that you're here. I understand your sense of worry, but I just want to make sure we're being practical at the same time. So... So am I, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. So we can amend this, but we're going to have to revisit it. And I am quite aware of the fact that we do have some deadlines here. But Commissioner O'Brien, that's where I'm being practical. Commissioner Maynard. No, it's fine. I'm enjoying the conversation. So I have a practical question to follow up on Commissioner O'Brien's question and your question. If someone is captured in that initial disclosure, would we review if they came a second time? Because I think that's important to know. If we would review it a second time, then we may have solved for the problem of the fly-by-night that's trying to just do one off, one off, one off. Commissioner Director Lillios. I mean, you know, in the crush of business, it can be difficult to have a timely review of that before it happens again, right? So it would be helpful to the IEB for you to be specific on what the criteria are for when somebody needs to get elevated to or even register in the first instance, when that becomes a requirement, what would you like there? Because if we have the term regularly in one part of the regulation into you, that means the second time they're not regular anymore, it would be helpful to have that, you know, self-policing in the regulation. Because, you know, we review it on the casino side, we review disbursement reports. And they are after the fact, right? It's what was dispersed. So we go back and we look at them and we try to determine what registrants. Now on the gaming side, all of the vendors must be either registered or licensed. That is not the case on the sports wagering side. So we review those disbursement reports largely to determine which of the registrants need to be elevated. Where's there a big dollar amount? And we need to elevate them. So the fact that we're looking at it a little bit after the fact is fine. They're already, you know, registered. We've already done some measure of invest on them and the regulations call for that. I'm just trying to, Caitlin Hall, please call. I'm hearing that in order to address the issues, you would need more time. You would not be able to do that today. Correct? I think it would be best to take a little bit more time. Yes. So Caitlin, give me some ideas on how to get the work done that we need to get done. Because the folks have asked for us to resolve this today. That's the best scenario. Well, let me just ask, is there a hard stop at three? Yes, I know Commissioner Skinner has a very important meeting today. Okay. I do, but I can look into adjusting that meeting and I'm happy to if availability permits. But it is, and I was, I'm not being fair. She has to do with her high schoolers, so I'm very cognizant of that. So it sounds like Paul has something on that front, too. And Kay may not be available at three. I will say that it may be possible for the commission to come to a consensus on how the reg should function in the absence of outside counsel. And then we can get, we can take that direction and bring you back a reg that implements it, which would give the regulated parties some understanding of what's going forward, but not require, the, not require us to rewrite the reg on the wall, on the line. And I think there's also other sections of the reg again that we'd like to deal with today. So, or not today necessarily, but at the same time. So I don't know that there's, I don't know that there's a way to do, to, to, to update the, reach a consensus, update the reg and have it ready for a vote for the commission today. It's, but if, but if we adopt this right now, the system that's been proposed that reflects what's going on in licensing now and IEB now, that would be in place in alignment with what our consensus was, because we had a consensus, you know, with, we'll, we'll entertain revenue share entities if there's a heightened licensure. With respect, on the understanding that they would be at a minimum registered. And so to be blunt, my consensus was based on that understanding. Can we add a, can we add a section then of BI, not or whatever it is Tom, not withstanding this should, should a, you know, sports rate during vendor or third party operator, whatever the entity's definition is, not, not be required to license because of the lack of regularity, they must be a registered, could we just at least do that for now? Is there something that's just straightforward, not withstanding everything else in this, this right, have a real straightforward carve out for them. I'm looking for anything straightforward right now. Thanks, Paul. I'm, I'm fully disclosed that I had the benefit of having Paul be an intern when I worked with Governor's legal office and he was the guy I turned to, but just these kinds of things. So here we are again. So thank you, Paul. Madam Chair, what page are you looking at in the packet? Just trying to follow along their relation. 282, I think. 282, I'm just wondering if we can do a simple carve out and then we can return to this break with the additional issues. Let's look for something that will get people comfortable unless I've got four of the commissioners who are fine with how it is. Can I clarify, Madam Chair? I'm, I'm comfortable with the language as it's written right now, the regularly language. I just don't really like to leave a commissioner out. I've been there. So it's, it's, you know, it's just I, at the outset, I want to make sure that we all have our concerns addressed. And so, you know, I offered up that suggestion, sort of in the spirit of compromise. And so if, and, but I also recognize the fact that we will be returning to these regulations when it's time to do the final promulgation. So if we cannot, you know, and I really hate that, you know, I don't want to put Paul on the spot, you know, he said already that he'd like some, and I'm not suggesting that you are doing that, Madam Chair, but he's already indicated that he'd like some additional time to think this, you know, any changes through. And so I think we should respect that. Again, with the understanding that we'll have another opportunity to come back to these before we take a vote to promulgate them and file them as final. Richard Skinner, so is your position right now, rather than having Paul do some kind of a quick card out that you prefer that we, that you are okay with the language? Or what is your suggestion? I understand not we love when it's five zero and we are so often and I don't think Commissioner Bryan and I are very, very different. I think I'm just trying to be, you know, get this through. If we had days and days, we could probably get right down. So it's not, so I understand her position and it's certainly not to be disrespectful to her position. But I guess I do have, as my role of chair, I am trying to figure out her majority position so that we can move forward. So what is your position, Commissioner Skinner? I'm comfortable moving forward with the language as written, you know, I just, and I appreciate Paul, you know, his request to kind of have more time. No, none of us work well under pressure and short notice. So if there is someone who can do it, it's Paul Coveter. Well, I'm not taking anything away from him, but just, you know, again, my position is that I'm good to move forward with the regulations as they're written today. Okay, Madam Chair, Commissioner Skinner. What I would actually like to, first of all, Madam Chair, you are very kind. Second of all, what I would actually like to ask for is a five minute break to see if I can write you that very simple carve out. If I can get it done in five minutes, then I'll put it before the commission. And if I can't, you'll have that information. And then that would address Commissioner O'Brien. And again, this would come back to us another time. With that said, too, Caitlin is also would like us to look at the other changes as well on this. So why don't we do that five minute break and Paul, do you, it's 231. I'm not hearing a hard three or somebody have a hard three. Well, I still have it. You do. Commissioner Hill. I don't have a hard, I'm going to have a hard three at leaving the office. I'll be on my phone from that point on. Let's work toward three. Okay, Paul, give me five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, excuse everybody else to take a break as well. Thank you so much. I would have put on a matching tie if I'd known about problem gambling awareness month. Okay, I think we can take down, but I see Paul is back. Okay. Paul, I don't know if you have a chance to address the issue. We also, you know, I will entertain any, any motions that are available always on these matters. So Madam Chair, I very much. I guess I do need to take a little I am here. Mr Hill. I'm here. Mr Skinner. I'm here. Mr Maynard. I'm here. All right. Now, thank you. Madam Chair, I very much want to avoid setting unrealistic expectations for the future. But I think that we have language here that will require all revenue shares to be registered that will buy us some time to take, to take a more holistic look at their treatment and perhaps a depth and consider a petitioning provision. If I may share my screen. That'd be great. Thanks. All right. So we're now into two colors of highlighting for which I apologize, but don't see a way around. So the changes that I'm currently proposing that are not reflected in your packet are in blue highlighting. What we've done is take the word regularly out of the definition of revenue sharing advertiser. So revenue sharing advertiser is now anyone who promotes sports wagering to patrons. Anyone who recruits other advertisers who does so, pardon me, I still need to take this language out. And anyone who does so in exchange for a percentage of net gaming revenue earned from those patrons where we've moved the word regularly is into sub paragraph two, which sets out the licensing standards for those entities. So now the requirement that no person operate as a revenue sharing advertiser unless licensed only covers those who operate as a revenue sharing advertiser regularly. And there is another catch all clause here that says that they know revenue sharing advertiser will make conduct sportsway may conduct business with a sportsway during operator, otherwise unless registered. I'll think I'm going to digest that the other commissioners need to to. Yeah, I guess Paul my only question on one is should it say sportsway during revenue or gaming cover it. You're right it should say sportsway. Otherwise I think it addresses what I was concerned about. I think you're correct. Thank you. Could you just move your I'm just going to mention a skitter. How are you feeling about I'm I'm good with the language. Okay, we can take the language down now. So we can see each other. Okay. So with that language and Paul, I had great faith in you. Thank you so much. Alright, now let's and no assumptions made for future commissioners. We want to make sure that Paul is just an entire legal team feels comfortable. I had great faith. Okay, so now if we are to accept that revenue sharing basis before we turn and return first to Caitlin before we turn to the vendor regulation as a whole, do we need to go back to our advertising reg and move on the other half of our discussion on rev share. If we assume this change this in place or does it or should we do the first and adopt the vendor language first. I think it might be easiest since we're sort of our minds are in the vendor reg to finish the vendor reg. There's not much more past this vote on the vendor reg and then move back to the waiver. Okay, so everybody keep the waiver piece in mind with that language ever satisfied. I think it's reflects the intentions that we want to. Okay, now. Moving on then. Yes, I think Paul will walk through the rest of the proposed amendments to the vendor reg commissioners. I'm going to recommend you start on page 281. Yeah, so this extended excuse me Madam Chair Paul what number did you say? Pardon me 281. Thank you. So as I said earlier, there is no other entity that is registered by default under our vendor regulation. So the language the red line that you're seeing here does two things. It defines the third party marketing and advertising entities that need to be registered by default. And it sets out the requirement that they read be registered by default. And then it creates the infrastructure for them to either be upgraded to vendors if their if their contract is of a size or of a nature or otherwise has potential implications for consumer protection that would call for that. And also enables them to be downgraded to non sports wagering vendors if they upon a petition upon a petition. So I'll start with the definition which begins in paragraph D one Roman numeral one. And I'll take you through all of the line items and carve outs to explain what work each piece is doing. So the first carve out is who is not a sports way during subcontractor. If we simply to find these entities based on the kinds of services that they were providing, we would sweep in sports way during subcontractors and on discussion with the IEB and licensing. Their preference is for subcontractors to who are marketing affiliates to be captured through their normal process. We do capture entities that hire marketing affiliates as subcontractors. So we will continue to register and have insight into those entities and particular subcontractors can always be upgraded to registrants. Subparagraph B in yellow highlighting is the carve out for revenue sharing advertisers. Subparagraph C and D should actually be merged. I apologize for the error in the copy before you but there's the semicolon and the semicolon there should be deleted. The or should be reinsert and the paragraph should be merged. This is what we just saw in the definition of revenue sharing advertisers. This is the meat of the definition. A marketing advertising affiliate is an entity that either promotes sports way during patrons or recruits others who do the same on a regular basis and here again regularly is for conformity with our general definition of what it means to be a sports way during vendor. Subparagraph E who does not otherwise provide good software services which directly relate to sports way during operations is to ensure that someone who would otherwise be a sports way during a vendor is not downgraded to a registrant by virtue of the fact that they provide marketing services. And the final subparagraph F who's not an entity described in I'm not going to go through that entire designation but who's not a television radio newspaper internet or other media entity is meant to carry through an exception to general registration requirements that appear as further down in the rag. The idea the main idea here is to distinguish entities that really carry advertisements from entities that really generate advertisements. And again the IEB will see disbursements and disclosure it will see disbursements and disclosures relating to all of these media entities and if the and if the relationship with one of them is such the bad entity should be registered the IEB and licensing can always require that. So that's the definition of third party marketing or advertising entity that seems like a good moment to pause and invite any questions. Richers I'm not seeing anybody leaning in so continue please. Paragraph two is contains the requirement that third party marketing and advertising entities be registered the sports way during registrants. Paragraph three require paragraph three and four together permit licensing in the bureau to upgrade them to sports way during vendors. The list of factors that they may consider I hasten to add without limitation referred to at the end of paragraph four is the same list of factors set out for them to consider when deciding whether to upgrade a non sports way during vendor to a registrant. The final paragraph is sorry the final paragraph five sets out a notice and in effect appeal period for the bureau and licensing to notify any registrant who needs to be licensed as a vendor instead to be so licensed and this is consistent with the process set out for non sports way during vendors to be set up as registrants and then finally this I believe this will appear as sub paragraph six but track changes gets a little bit wonky with paragraph heading which I apologize is the petition process for an entity to be downgraded from a registrant to a non sports way during vendor and this is based on a similar provision that allows license that allows vendors that must be licensed to petition to be downgraded to registrants or non sports way during vendors and that is that is the sum total of how we handle third party advertising or marketing affiliates in this regulation and that seems like another good moment to pause questions comments okay not hearing anything from the commissioners team members any concerns okay it's not a concern just a thank you I mean I know that this has been a slog so I just wanted to say thanks it's been today just being part of it for the work that you guys have been doing awards methods I want to be very clear that this has been a complete team effort with the IEB licensing and with legal and we're very grateful for the many meetings that everyone has sat in on hammering this out together excellent okay not least not least to mention the commissioners the last set of changes that I'll draw your attention to begin on page 298 and run through to page 299 so as we've as we've said a few times today 234 was one of the first regulations that the commission adopted which meant that at the time that we adopted it at the time the commission adopted it there the conversations about discipline had not taken place and there certainly was no discipline regulation for sports wagering so 234 originally had a custom disciplinary provision since then the commissioners adopted 232 the umbrella discipline rag and so we propose striking the custom disciplinary provision which is at least one very small way actually narrower than the umbrella disciplinary provision and simply replacing it with a what functions as a cross-reference to 232 and that's what the changes to power to sections 234 11 and 234 12 accomplish questions on that again sort of a benefit of evolution and thinking about these matters over time so there we go all right that's it right colm that's it madam chair okay so commissioners we started out with the initial motion that commissioner skinner started with yesterday we got through on the cpa piece now I think we recognize the intersectionality between revenue share piece under the advertising and this lights this song regulation I think what our legal team is recommending that we move with respect to this regulation first with the changes that we've discussed today are people in agreement with that first legal design how you like to see it that way right Caitlin that would be wonderful thank you okay excellent commissioner skinner and I turn to you absolutely I'm hope that the commission approved the small business impact statement and the draft 205 cmr 234 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today second okay any further discussion okay commission Ryan hi commissioner hill hi commissioner skinner hi and commissioner me okay so we put care of that with my vote yes i'm zero okay part two yes I move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process I further move that staff shall be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second thank you any questions or edits on that okay commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi commissioner skinner hi commissioner maynard hi and I vote yes by zero now we go back to the advertising regulation we separated out the concepts of cpa and revenue share commissioner skinner let's take discussion sorry jumping ahead I'm anxious to get through this one finally yes me too and I'm anxious to hear it thank you I move that in accordance with 205 cmr 202.023 the commission issue a waiver to all licensed sports wage operators from 205 cmr 256.013 that allows revenue sharing agreements until April 14 2023 as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 cmr 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of general laws chapter 23 yet okay thank you commissioner hill any edits or discussion commissioner brian nay oh okay um commissioner um I thought you were gonna um weigh in on discussion I'm sorry oh I feel like I've you've you're also needed a lot today I think I made myself clear I don't think this is the the time of the forum to do it in but um that's the short and sweet on that and um I will be nay okay and I assume there's no other discussion or edits from anyone else so all right so nay is recorded commissioner brian christier hill hi uh christier skinner hi christier maynard hi and I vote yeah so four um gays and one nay and thank you I think that um everybody worked to hear each other and I appreciate that very much and I appreciate everyone's patience and I want to extend my my thanks to paul commoners again it's it's great to see everybody at work and sometimes it it is a little bit on the spot there we go you did a great job so thank you paul um is there any other business for today commissioners um the only thing I just wanted to bring up was some of the ads that I've been seeing uh bruce has been very responsive when I call and put queries out um and I did fan duel was very responsive um in terms of I saw an ad that referenced being able to load uh with a creditor debit card and a graphic from Massachusetts they pulled it down they changed it I do want that to be brought up um at some point the revised ad mentions a prepaid fan duel card which she's looking into for me but it's something I did want to put out there for broader discussion um just to make sure that maybe some of the fixes aren't creating other um credit card or one step away credit card um situations as we're heading toward the launch next week thank you for that um which reminds me too we should um also just make sure that um uh executive director rose uh updates us on um the universal wallet issues that have come out right correct that was that and as uh when bruce responded to me that was a question that I had I think it circles back into the universal wallet question I I have um anecdotally heard that um there was also a situation where the kiosk um at one of the uh entities and I won't say what it is didn't have um security around it I don't know if we affirmatively stated that we um require um uh security at each kiosk section I think there was an expectation commissioner brian I think you good well the reg describes that there has to be if it's not going to be closed off from under 21 that there has they basically have to get a pool from IDM setup it's the whole reason ppc decided not to book kiosks in the horse racing area because of the 18 and 21 disconnect so right so um that would be another area for that's again where um we are underway at the retail and as we move towards march 10 so um it's quite right to bring up the ads the um it's also for us those extra eyes everyone's watching those advertisements thank you commissioner brian for that uh and then I'll just circle back and make sure terms of the kiosk if our um our folks on the floor can just be monitoring that and make sure the compliance uh at this time um anything else all right I'll take a motion to adjourn so moved second for sure all right hi for sure oh hi thank you for your shirts both of you very much thank you uh commissioner skinner hi mr maynard hi right well yes five zero everyone thanks excellent work today the entire team uh we appreciate it and I think we got to a very good spot and commissioner skinner again my gratitude