 Yep, I'm hitting the button now and we are good. Good morning all. Today we are convening another public meeting of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission are holding this meeting virtually. So I'll take a little call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. Right, we've just started. Just a note that the Gaming Commission just left at nine o'clock for an agenda-studying meeting. Thank everybody on the team for its continued hard work. We're now convening this meeting, which is really a continuation of a series of meetings that we've held relative to license applicants for online sports wagering untethered category three licenses. So I'm calling to order. Public meeting number 425, January 19th, 2023. I have just a few rough remarks just to remind commissioners where we left off yesterday. We did have a chance to meet, to begin our review of what we are now considering the final phase of our evaluation where we will eventually look at these six applications under a collective lens. So yesterday afternoon, we began our review of these six untethered category three sports wagering applications, the light of the submission of supplemental information by the respective applicants to address any questions and concerns brought forth by the commission during our initial review of the particular application. We'll recall that the assessments of each section of the respective applications performed in initial stages of this evaluation process was preliminary in nature. And as we've said, subject to adjustment now that we've had an opportunity to assess each of the six applications. Ultimately, if an applicant did not satisfy the commission's expectations in relation to any section of their application during that initial review, we'll discuss whether the issuer deficiency has been cured via the supplemental information provided or whether the strength of the rest of the application efficiently compensates for that deficiency or whether in the alternative a condition addressing the issue is appropriate. So what I'd like to do is turn to the chart that Secretary Director Wells and Crystal Bushman prepared for us that indicates our earlier consensus building outcomes, the preliminary review where we called it taking the gaming commission's temperature on a section by section analysis. And then we'll proceed through the applications first turning to where we did request supplemental information. And then I'll find out how we feel about that and then confirm how we feel about the remaining sections. Does that work for you? And then if you could all keep in mind whether there's some outstanding deficiency, whether the overall application strength of it outweighs any particular deficiency. And also if you have any condition that you would like for us to consider as a body. Okay, so does everybody have that document, that chart available? If not, Crystal could pull it up to the top of this email. Yes, I did send it just before this meeting but I can resend the most recent version was sent sorry, just before the previous meeting at 832. And that includes all of the follow-ups and I've coded the tabs so that you guys know where you need to come up set up. Oh, was that the, I'm thinking to adjust the. Oh, the one Karen distributed yesterday. Yeah, I did not develop that Karen did. I don't have it. I'm glad I did you with the work of this. I mean, I, her and I sat there in brainstorm but she, the document lives in her materials so I don't. Good. Is she on? I can just text her. That's just that simple grid. Yeah, it's a really, yeah, just that I don't have that. Sorry. Sorry, I was trying to get my camera issue here all of a second. No problem. All right, can I see? Okay. Thanks for the credit Karen, but I cannot get that too. I'm like frantically trying to press the button. Yeah, I'll send that to everybody's inbox. I had given paper copies to all the commissioners yesterday. Thank you. Face me, don't have it handy. Okay, yep. That'll be good. Okay, so turning first to Bolly's, there were two sections that we had turn to section C and B supplemental information. That information was provided. We addressed it yesterday. We had a chance to sleep on it. And for those commissioners who requested it, can we confirm the level of satisfaction? And then we'll turn to the other sections where to confirm that each application section met our expectations at this juncture. C and B, Mr. Skinner, I believe that we're out to do confirmed yesterday that you were all set. Correct. Okay. Commissioner Maynard? I'm all set. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? I, yeah, I think I'm all set on Bally's. As am I. Good on Hill. Commissioner Hill on the engagement, right? All set, yeah. Okay, so just to do, just to be thorough in terms of our chart indicates that section B, section F, and section G, we met expectations, they met expectations then. Do we have any, any new thoughts on that? Or can we confirm our earlier assessment? I believe all sections have been met, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Do we have further information? I concur with Commissioner Hill. Thank you. Same. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. I'm sorry, can you do that again? I, I, we're still, was it section D? No, this was, so first off, I want you to be able to, to chime in, but in terms of sections C and D, those were the only two were supplemental information, as requested, I believe the others said that, that that information did meet their satisfaction. And then we were just taking the temperature on the other ones where we had earlier agreed. Got it. Okay, yeah, yeah, no. So I'm fine with those. With both, with both. Okay, thanks so much. All right. Then turning to better. Crystal, do you want to remind us where we are in terms of better? So with better, you had made two requests yesterday to follow up on the the diversity spend and the data provided, they have done that with actually a very, well articulated statement, which I have included in the document, which includes the total supplier spend as well as the percent goal, which they had clarified because they had included in the, that in their slides, as well as their anticipated goals. And where they currently are. So I think that request came from Commissioner Skinner. In addition, there were statistics requested to be further developed by Commissioner O'Brien. They've provided a snapshot that shows that they cannot actually get the breakout that was asked for. That's the black and white snapshot that's included. And then they did provide a response to explain especially related to the ask about Twitter and their in-house analytics. And I think that was, that is all that I had. Is everybody able to access that information? Crystal's most up to date. It's an additional column, by the way. I added a follow-up column D. Yeah, really helpful, Crystal. So I took that to me and that basically that's as deep as they can go with the stats of what's available to them. Is that a fair summary of that answer? Yes. And then they offered the general analysis that Twitter by its associate and by when it was launched and who the users generally are is an older demographic, but they can't break it out into 18. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have on that supplement to the most up to date? I was emailing Crystal right from the meeting and she was able to guide me right through it. So you have it, okay. Yeah. So with respect to better than, we had with respect to section D and section E, we had taken kind of that consensus temperature where we felt and met, but there were requests for subs. So we'll get to section G afterwards. I'm sorry, Chair, but I had forgotten to add, while we didn't ask for any additional materials, there was a time that we were asked to review the responsible naming plan. So yeah, you need to return to that as well. Yesterday, we had received it yesterday, but there needed to be time to review. So that's also E. Crystal, I'm sorry. I'm not sure if I understand. So the on the section E, there was no further requests or you just had a question. There were no further requests, but yesterday you hadn't looked at that piece because it was all kind of two lengthy documents provided. So that line four, you were anticipating returning to today. I see, yes. If I recall correctly, as I looked over my notes last night, their application happened to include responsible gaming plan that was tailored to Ohio. Now that that's why Ohio is there. And so they included one that was tailored to Massachusetts. That's correct. In terms of section G, Crystal, did we ask for anything further? We asked for an answer. You did not. Nope, yet you discussed it and Commissioner O'Brien was set with section G. Okay, G, so G was, we got some supplemental information about litigation, but that I hadn't looked at yet. So I said to check the box because they gave us what we had asked for, but I hadn't read it. Yeah, okay. No further information requested. Right. So with respect to D and E, now that we've gotten some supplemental information, if I could turn to Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Maynard or Commissioner Skinner, I think it really, the notes suggested was from you. How are you feeling about the information? Satisfied with section D. I think it meets expectations. Excellent. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. I think you were all stuck. Yeah, I appreciate the supplemental information provided by the applicant and I'm all set. Great, thank you. Commissioner Hill, I don't think you asked for anything on this one. I did not. But they certainly met, they responded to our colleagues' requests nicely, I thought. So that's good. I agree with that and I feel they met expectations. Okay. And then, so I've got a check mark off on B, E, and G. So, and before we had it clear, no qualification with respect to B, C, and F, with respect to all of the sections, can we agree that we think at this juncture that the applicant has met expectations or do we want to go back to any particular section? Commissioner Hill? I, Commissioner Hill can go first. That's fine. I didn't have anything to add, Commissioner Maynard. Oh, okay. So I didn't, I was reading the litigation and trying to understand whether or not there was an answer to the complaint that had been filed. And it's, Crystal, if you can help me out, whether a complaint has been filed on that cryptocurrency or is that? I think they said that no answer has been filed. Yes, that's your question. That's, I'm just trying to, or that's my memory, but when I was trying to find it just now, I was having difficulty finding it. I think I did read that somewhere. I feel like I read that too, but I don't have that. I didn't find it again, but I don't think I can, I can just try to get like a statement of clarification really quickly on that. Let me see. They've been really responsive. Yeah, and maybe it was a verbal that they gave us and that's why I'm not seeing it anywhere. That's why I think we are all recalling it, but I don't think I have a note. And as to the RG, I'm looking through the RG program, wasn't quite what I thought it was going to be given their great ideas in certain areas, but I think that it checks the box and meets expectations in terms of what we asked them to submit. So across the board, is there any particular section that we need to discuss further that does not meet expectations? Okay, commissioner, does somebody want to give me their temperature affirmatively? Thanks, commissioner Maynard. I'm happy to. I believe that this applicant has met all expectations for me. Agreed. I also agree. I think they've met the expectations for the submissions we requested. Okay, thank you, and I agree as well. All right. Then we're going to move on to that there, or as we know, Fanduil. Again, there were requests on this one with respect to section C and B. Let's turn to Crystal's document. Yeah, I think I might have been the one holding things up on this section because I hadn't had time to review the information submitted yesterday. So I do now believe that section D meets expectations. Okay. Yes, that was the only note I had there was that we just needed a little bit of time to review. Okay, thank you. Nothing additional. And then I think we're, yeah, on the other we're all set to. Okay, so with that, those two were the only ones with the request for supplemental information. The others are, we have all as a preliminary review felt that the applicant met expectations. Has anything changed? No for Commissioner Hill. So you would right now would say all sections meet expectations. Yes. Thank you. And anything that you'd like to say? Read, okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Same. Okay. And just as a confirmation, I just sent the response from better and it was that it has nothing's been filed. So we're all set. Crystal, I'm sorry. Could you just repeat so it's clear? Yes, they had said they quickly responded that no answer has been filed in either matter. So. Thank you. Okay. And so now back to sandals. I think Commissioner Skinner. Good. The application to expectations. Thank you. And I agree. All right. Now we're moving on to crown or draftings. In this application, we looked for, we found section D generally meet expectations that we did after some supplemental information and then we asked for supplement information with respect to section G. Madam Chair, I was satisfied with the supplemental email in section D. Does everybody see that update? Thank you for that. And then I'm looking at section G. Did we agree yesterday, Crystal, is that your notation that it met because it's. I was on mute. Yes. That's you, Commissioner O'Brien. On section. You're saying G. Oh, that's correct. In G, Commissioner O'Brien, you're all set then. I just want to make sure you saw your notation. Okay. So, Commissioner, with that, do we feel that this juncture, our draftings and application has met all expectations. Anything you want to bring up. And I should remind everybody that if there's any condition, not hearing any, but we can go back, we can read those conditions of course, any juncture and with the assistance of Councilor Quistner. I believe all sections I've been met, Madam Chair. Thank you. I agree. Great. Thank you. I agree. And Commissioner O'Brien. Same. Okay. And I'm all set. Moving on to DGC, Digital Gaming Court. In this case, we took our general temperature and felt section C met expectations, but we did ask for some additional information. And then. And yesterday, we just needed a little bit of time to review the supplemental regarding the go live date. We also And we also have an outstanding request on that actually just section B, which they get submitted as well. I think it's considered in others. Yeah. Yes. I thought I fixed that yesterday. But they, I do not have a status update on that. I'm not sure if Karen or Loretto or anyone on might think I saw Loretto was on. I think on section, that section B submission, we may have been in need to maybe read it, some take a little bit more. Oh, yeah. Sorry. I thought you would jump down to the super group piece. Sorry. I did jump to the first, but it's. Yeah. Yeah. Second. Go live. Yep. That was where you needed some more time. Right. Yeah. So this is a situation where the applicant has disclosed that they would have a later launch date. I felt yesterday that the they checked the box, Commissioner O'Brien, to borrow your main phrase and they responded and kind of appreciated that response. I think I might explore with the questioners if we should we decide to proceed with a license, in this case, a condition on a launch date. I'm not sure how we feel about that, but it could be coordinated with the applicant. That's just an initial thinking. Commissioner Skinner here, I think you said TVD to be determined. I don't know who had the chance to to read the to look at the longer entry. I didn't have the opportunity to do that. I think I was the one who had requested that. So I am all set with Section B and how it's been supplemented. Right. OK, Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner O'Brien, on this piece, he will be turned to Section CD. I'm satisfied. I'm satisfied. Right. Same here, Madam Chair. Excellent. Thank you. OK, so it's actually by my charts, this section just B, but I think they overlap, C and D. And we went through it yesterday and I believe, Commissioner Skinner, you felt that you were all set. So if we can look at all of the application. The application meets expectations from my perspective. Yeah, I agree, Madam Chair. OK, great. Same. Great, Commissioner Maynard. I'm good. And I'm all set as well. And as I said, it's just a condition we can explore as we think about this in the middle. OK, and then points back. We look for supplemental information just on Section D. Looks like our notes are that Section D. Well, Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Skinner, you're all set. And then, Commissioner O'Brien. You did have questions around Section C. Which I believe you felt were met yesterday as well. And I know it's saying we're not sure if we took our quote-unquote temperature on Section G on suitability. I don't believe there are any outstanding issues around compliance and suitability, but I just want to check in with you on on gene. My notes indicated that I was all set. I think that was just the piece that we did receive a supplement for related to the Indiana matter. Thank you. And yesterday, it seemed everyone was safe with that. OK, missioners. Any any questions on that? And if not, do you feel that the applicant has met all expectations across the board? Commissioner Hill, I feel the applicant has met all. Sections. Satisfactorily, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. I agree. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. No, same. OK. So now. We're turning to the collective review of all of the applicants, what we refer to as the southern factor up until now, the commission has reviewed the six applicants individually and made determinations about whether each section of each application meets the commission's expectations. Having done that, the commission will now consider whether granting licenses to this entire group of six applicants or some subset thereof with maximize overall benefits and minimize overall terms for the risk of harms to come up. A regulation requires that we take into consideration the variations between the applicants as they relate to any other sports wagering licensed applicants or licensees. This will be useful in making the final decisions and that it should help clarify what the online digital sports wagering landscape will look like in the commonwealth if we are to award the licenses to the applicants for us. So we've gotten a lot of good help from our legal team. I want to express my gratitude to our team and into A and K for their assistance. As we we consider this part of our analysis, one way to view this part of the process is that it can be a useful tool that will help bring the portfolio options that will ultimately be available to consumers in the commonwealth into focus. Along those lines, we may, for example, look at the differences in maturity among the companies with different types of technology or features that may be offered. Any innovations, new strategies or unique wages being offered by any applicant or group of applicants. Once we complete that part of the review, we'll ask General Counsel Grossman to walk through the governing factors and standards that we can move directly into an individualized application by application evaluation leading to our final decision. So before we begin this discussion, Todd is available. So relative to the seventh factor, does anybody have questions as to how we approach this more collective review of the six applications? And Executive Director Wells has also been very involved in getting guidance on this. So she's available for any questions as well. So I'm not hearing any questions. I actually did have a question. Thank you. Because we had an executive session last night from RSM that did some of the comparative numbers. I know for me, I might have some more questions and deliberations that relate to those numbers. So my question is, is that portion of it valid for us to deliberate an executive session because we're going to be talking about that sensitive information? Refer to General Counsel Grossman on the legal question. That would be appropriate to just limit the portion of the deliberation to the specific information that we've already talked about in the executive session so as to protect it. We would, of course, just want to identify the precise issue. Right. I mean, I can identify now, but I'm willing to defer until we get further into this deliberations to see if anyone else has questions on it as well. So what you're saying, Commissioner Bryan, to the extent that it's an important piece of the puzzle, right, to the extent that we want to consider the information that was shared in a collective lens, we'll just we'll part that and then go into the executive session and then we convene to share our inputs the best way we can on those matters. Is that OK? Do you want at the beginning, like, would you and are you OK with it closer to the end? I don't know that it matters where it falls in the sequence. It's obviously just it's part of the analysis, the overarching analysis. So whether we apply it in other parts of it first or goes there first. Right. I mean, whatever that says, that document is also part of Crystal's communication to us, so to have to remind ourselves of that. So just to get the conversation going a little bit, I thought about, you know, areas that were important to me and I have a few. And I thought, you know, I'll lead with saying I felt we were very fortunate to have six applicants that actually provide a good deal of variation to provide it sort of a rich discussion for us as we review those applications. I like that we have applications that have a good very, very robust global footprint. And we're lucky to have an applicant that has a very, very much a more local footprint. So a couple, actually. So I see I see as global leaders. And do all this water and PTC and points that, of course, draft teams as well. And of course, I see local, we have draft teams in our backyard, but follows us across the way and in Rhode Island. So I know that. Another piece that was important to me, because I see Massachusetts as being really a cradle of innovation. I like that we had better come forward. They're a newer company with a different model. So I was pleased to see that kind of innovation. And I happen to welcome that. But those are just a couple of areas that were meaningful to me. I've got a bunch of others, but I want to hear from you. As you were looking and reviewing these and one, I just want. So a lot of work and all of you did such, you know, me. It was great work, in fact, because of the quality of the application. So, you know, what what areas sparked your your interest as you thought about the collective review? So I'm happy to jump in, Madam Chair. So for me. Some of the areas that were sort of more potent in applications were primary for responsible gaming, suitability and then the economic impact. And so I was particularly struck if there was a commitment already or the representation of a commitment in terms of actual jobs being produced because the nature of this business doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get jobs in your state. So that to me was impactful if people said that. The responsible gaming component was something that I weigh substantially and we can get into it later. Sometimes I was conflicted with getting sort of great ideas on the one hand, but then not necessarily seeing maybe seeing something that conflicted with what was sort of the representations of their responsible gaming commitment. And then you have a couple of do or entrance into the market. And so also in conflict for me was this idea of that's a great idea, but you're not exactly tested and proven yet. And do we want to put you into the market in Massachusetts to potentially have you disappear? So that's something that I'm considering as I go through this impact. It's part of the reason I'd really like to talk about some of the numbers that we got yesterday to to wrestle with. Not obviously looking at these people one by one, these companies one by one, but as a whole coming into the environment that's going to have the retail and some tethered as well and how that all is going to play out. Kind of short ride, you might be asking if you could point out some of the applicants with respect to let's say that the economic driver keeps the jobs. If you know, just so that we start putting names and into place, if you have your notes, I'm going to have to go back to my notes. So I mean, as I said to draft kings when they were there, the reality is being based on the common wealth, you know, no one's going to be able to compete with who's here already, and what's going to be there. But if I'm not mistaken, I think, and I'm maybe thinking of one of the tethered as well in terms of making commitments. I think we had two who indicated that depending on how things go, they might open up areas in here. I think better was one. And I don't know if anyone else can help me, but I remember DGC or points that who indicated there was the potential for that, depending on where they saw the need. Well points that said they might do a call center. Right. So I was looking at my notes could be up to 30. Yeah. Potentially fall center basis. Or maybe that was DGC. I'm sorry. DGC I guess was the one that said that depending it could go up to as, you know, up to as many as maybe 30, depending points that had the call center. So we had some of them and then, you know, a few of them basically said, look, we're not really anticipating jobs. It's not how our business is modeled. Yeah, I think valleys, well, they might have some remote given their closeness to the commonwealth. There's no set plans to do that. Okay. And then in terms of RG. Yeah, so the RG that one of the ones I'm struggling with the most in terms of RG and suitability for me is better. Because they've got these great plans, they come out up front, they're not going to use the credit cards, they were sort of ahead of the industry on that they've got a mission in terms of putting the caps on the 21 to 25. Recognizing that vulnerable population. And yet the type of platform they offer is on the one hand, innovative and on the other hand, prone to maybe lots of impulses and something that's not really studied in the RG community. And the image of the company is tied to an individual that has direct connections to a sport that, you know, might be carved out for them. And then has a background of not your typical suitability background for a licensee that I'm used to seeing. So that's the one I'm there. They're high. They're extreme goods and challenges for me in that particular application. With that said, and then you see just and then DGC for me is more of a when you look at the market and you look at the readiness. That's another one I'm struggling with. Just put on the record because I know you know this I just want to clarify on suitability, all of none of these no qualifier, no qualifier has gone through our our suitability analysis. And so and I think Councilor Grossman will remind us of what is expected for preliminary suitability. But I just want to be, you know, very clear to any qualifier that you know, that's that we feel for everyone is is in the future based on this statute. Right. So we have preliminary in front of us today based on substantial evidence. And then the final clear and convincing is down the road for the durable. Right. Okay. So now the the experience and it is a little bit of attention, right? Experience versus motivation. Yeah. Now some of our newer commerce might also have experienced leadership. So I took that into account as well, their newcomers, maybe not burdened by an old product. And but they come with substantial experience in their leadership. So, Michelle, I don't know if you just want to add to your thoughts on that because I think that that is, you know, an obvious tension. But again, it seemed, I don't recall any particular applicant who came in and didn't have at least a handful of people who had experience in the industry. Now it's a nation industry. So in terms of the United States, that's much more limited. But, you know, some of them, that's I think why we're seeing some of the international involvement in some of these holding companies. So some of the presence came in that way, or they came in from, you know, people leaving FanDuel and then coming over to start something on one of the tethered, for example. Excellent. Okay, commissioners, what are your other commissioners, other thoughts in terms of the values that you were looking for or areas commission scanner? Yeah, so I don't know that I'm going to be able to pull out specifics from each applicant. I have my notes in front of me, but they're not consolidated. So I'll spare you all the time that will take for me to get through a cursory review of them for purposes of this discussion. But, you know, I focused in particular on a couple of different areas of diversity in the workforce, as well as supplier diversity. And I believe that each of the applicants have demonstrated a commitment to increasing diversity in both of those areas where where they lacked a response in the application. And they certainly delivered with respect to the supplemented documentation. And in some cases over delivered. Well, let me take that back, because I don't think you can over deliver on diversity. But in terms of the information requested, some of the applicants went above and beyond. And so that is something I appreciate very much. Community engagement was another area. I think, Chair, you highlighted draft Kings as local, right based right here in Boston. And so I think that is very good for for the community and in Massachusetts in general, they've been operating here. I can't remember for how long, but they do have a foothold here in the commonwealth already. I didn't. It's you know, so that's not to say that the other areas of the application were not important to me. The information we requested in the application. We spent a lot of time developing the application and touching on each of the factors that we wanted the applicants to speak to. There was nothing in any of the applications glaringly insufficient or or deficient in my mind. And so, you know, I I understand Commissioner O'Brien is seeking some additional discussion around the finances. But I'm struggling because I don't think this commission allowed itself the resources or the time to really dig into sort of the economics of market saturation and the like. And so, you know, I guess I'm just getting to the point in saying that I don't think that there's anything in any of these applications that you know, granted, we have the suitability process that needs to be completed long term, the durable suitability. But I'm not finding anything in either of these applications that would suggest that we should not be approving them. I just and so I'll ask the question, are our hands a little tied there? And I don't mean to jump ahead. It's just something I'm struggling with. I mean, we, you know, we're discussing the applications and evaluating them. But I don't think we as a commission has identified an evaluative approach. And I know we're reviewing these applications on a comparative type basis. But, you know, I'm just I want to, you know, understand my charge a little bit better, because I think if we're getting to the question of a temporary license, I don't see how, you know, I can do anything other than approve the application or vote to approve the application, and therefore issue a temporary license with or without a condition. So I think I kind of went beyond, Madam Chair, what you are looking for. But I think all of all of the applications as a whole, I think brought bring something they are promising to bring something to Massachusetts that it doesn't already have. And the market is a new one, as our has already been pointed out. And I don't I can't see myself deciding, you know, to grant one application over another at this point, because they were all responsive. They provided the information that we asked for. And again, we review these applications in a compressed timeline, I think, other than the suitability review, there's nothing outstanding for me. So actually, what you've done is you're thinking about them as a whole. So that's we're being asked to do under the seventh factor. And please know that this is the guidance I'm giving us is provided via our attorneys as we we look back at our regulatory structure. So I'm hearing you say, you know, you're looking at the sixth and and as a collective, you're not saying that that you're seeing one being particularly more deficient than the other or as a collective, they wouldn't work. And I think the standard and turn to Council Grossman is that in the light of the entire landscape of sports wagering, that granting the license to the applicant or applicants would maximize overall benefits and minimize overall harms with a risk of harm. And maybe your, you know, what you just did is really that collective analysis from your perspective, Commissioner Skinner, I think we've been asked to just look at that collective lens. You know, you brought up market saturation. I don't worry about the notion of this is personal, you know, market saturation, because from my perspective, the legislature spoke in terms of the numbers. And they gave a cap of up to seven of the untethered and and set a pretty clear roadmap for us. So I feel as though we are fulfilling our obligations. I also think in this market, this online market, particularly the industry is very prone to mergers and acquisitions. And so an opportunity for maybe an emerging company might provide something for opportunity for an acquisition. So market saturation is supposed an issue that you brought up. But I had really in my overall lens, I hadn't really worried about that one. So that's actually my point. I can't worry about it because I don't have enough information, you know, to factor that into my my deliberation. I think you're right. I mean, I am looking at the applications collectively. You know, we've been at this since January 3. Practically every every work day, all day. And we went through each of the sections for every application have made the determination that each of those sections meets expectations. And, you know, that review mirrors the criteria that that we are, you know, applying today in our discussion. And so I just I want to be clear. I do understand that this is a necessary process in what we're doing today. But I don't see it. I don't see any difference in today's process. Um, you know, from what we've been doing since January 3. So it's so in that I just and I'll finish up. So just in that, you know, I stand on the record with my comments that I have made. And you know, there's there's a recording of them. You know, in terms of, you know, the highlights of each of these applications. And so I'm prepared to do that again today if necessary. Again, I have my notes here. They're just not consolidated. So you'll have to bear with me as we go through each of these particular sections, if that's what the the plan is for today. Okay, um, why don't I hear from Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill and then perhaps, uh, Council Grossman, you can add a little bit more life. But why don't we go to Commissioner Hill or Commissioner Maynard? I did see that Commissioner O'Brien leaned in to make a comment. I did but I, I want to comment on something and respond to something Commissioner Skinner said, but I want to wait until you and Commissioner Maynard have had your opportunity to speak. Commissioner Maynard, I think you leaned in first. So feel free. I'm happy. I'm happy to get some initial thoughts. You know, sports wagering is going to be beneficial to the Commonwealth. And I believe it just as Speaker Mariano made clear when the legislation passed that it's going to bring immense economic benefits to the Commonwealth. Like Commissioner Skinner, I focused on diversity opportunities at each company, both inside and outside the Commonwealth. And a lot of that has to do with my personal experience. I woke up every day at my last job trying to figure out how we can diversify the workforce in the Commonwealth, the boards and commissions, which I'm now lucky enough to serve on in the Commonwealth. And we believe that the Commonwealth was made better as we made an intentional choice and it was intentional to champion our own diversity. And the reason I wanted to make that an issue for every applicant is because I think they will see the same benefit and including diversity in their own companies as they move forward. And I hope that that benefits not only within their workforce, but with who they do business with, with supplier diversity. I also focused on a lot of and yesterday, as you mentioned Madam Chair, we did have the opportunity to go to Treasurer Goldberg's square and for her third term. And the Massachusetts Lottery is the most successful lottery in the country. And it's very unique in that most of its dollars go back to the 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth. And so I do believe that it's important that we make sure that any efforts that we make should mitigate any harms that could come to the lottery. And I have to point out better really had an interesting approach to what it when it comes to the state lottery. But all applicants expressed a willingness to work with the lottery and to make sure that a rising tide lifted all boats. And so that was really important to me. Like my fellow commissioners, preliminary suitability is something that I care deeply about. And I want to make sure that no one is operating that has any glaring issues. I reviewed all of the IEB reports, and I will say that they contained a lot of information. But in my opinion, there was nothing glaring to deny anyone temporary suitability, understanding that ongoing suitability may turn up more information and may make the decision different in the long term. As to the economics piece, I have to say that I really appreciated all the information we learned. And the way that I view this industry is that it's relatively new. There's not a whole lot of data because if you go outside of a couple jurisdictions, 2018 was the first time any of this was legalized nationwide. And I would love to have all the data points in the world. I'm not sure they exist. And so I'm uncomfortable understanding that in the industry as a whole, not speaking on any particular application, that the customer acquisition costs are high, that it's going to take a long time for this industry to mature, that even though we may be on, we as Massachusetts may be on the back end of implementing sports wagering in the country, the industry as a whole is still on the front end. We're still at the at the beginning line. And as we go, I think we will learn more about what the economics look like. And I think we'll see some changes as we go. I was comfortable with RSM telling me that across the board that all the projections were in line with what's happening nationwide, that no company and that presented to us was going to go belly up if the parent company was able to support them. And so I really took a lot of heart in RSM's analysis. You know, finally, I'll say this just to start us off, six applicants presented unique applications. And they really highlighted to me, I'm from Kentucky, so I'm going to use a Kentucky analogy, the unbridled opportunity that exists in the Commonwealth. And so I actually am really excited about today. And I'm excited about the opportunity to see how these applicants move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Commissioner Hill. The good thing about going last is everything has already been said, so I'm not going to sit here and repeat what all my fellow commissioners have already said. But I will say this. I'm at the beginning of this process, you know, I came in with my eyes wide open because this was going to be a learning experience for all of us because this is such a new industry to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And as Commissioner Maynard said, each of the applicants came in and they were all very special and unique to themselves of what they have done in other jurisdictions and what they hope to do here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And as one commissioner, I look at this entire not only process, but moving forward as a partnership. With these companies that may get a license from us here at the Commission. And it's a partnership that I think when you look at the applications educated us in a way with their experience and their background, which is something we all needed to learn. And each applicant for me anyways, one of the one of my real concerns or subjects that I really wanted to understand was their experience and their background. And every applicant gave us their experience or a vision of what they wanted to see moving forward. So I was appreciative of that. You all know how I cared about the community impacts and the partnerships that they were going to have with the community. Very happy to hear what they have done in other jurisdictions. But for me, the economic impact was very important. But as has already been said, and I'm not going to go off on it, because it's already been said, but the responsible gaming piece of this was very important to me as was the diversity. Something I have learned over my time on the commission is how important those two issues are to the commonwealth of Massachusetts. So important that the legislature chose to put it in the bills to ensure that it was addressed by the mass gaming commission. And in all cases, the applicants put forward, I believe, very responsible plans for responsible gaming. And the diversity piece to my friend, Commissioner Skinner, I was very impressed with most of it, if not all of the applicants, that they were hearing us and understanding that this was a huge issue for us. And moving forward, it was going to be addressed in an appropriate way. So, Madam Chair, I think your original question was, what were your priorities? And where they met? And in my opinion, in all cases, with the overall look collectively, I was very happy with the applicants that came forward, very happy with the responses that we got. But more importantly, the fact that they were in my one opinion, upfront, when it came to some of the suitability issues. And in particular, a couple of applicants who really were upfront with us, I was impressed with. So as we move forward, I feel like Commissioner Skinner does. You know, we went through a process. We asked a lot of questions. We went section by section with each applicant. And you know, I'm ready to move forward and get these votes taken and these applications, temporary licenses approved. Thank you. I guess I'm going to say that I make, I started the conversation because my notes say give a couple of examples. So I'm actually last, but I have nothing to add. All four of you captured my sentiments. I did. I did think about each application individually as we assess them. And Commissioner Hill, I couldn't agree with you more. I felt that each applicant spent a lot of time with us, a great deal of time in the public sphere. We, you know, we present good challenges under our meeting for companies to express so candidly, their goals, their visions, their history, information about, about matters like fines and violations that have to come forward that no one really wants to discuss in public. And they did it with us in a candid fashion, a thorough fashion. And then when we ask for more information, they will feel that. And I would say across the board, all six applicants were so, as you said, responsive. And for that, I'm terribly thankful. It gave us just all the information we need to think about them from the individual individually. And then as required by our brag in that collective pool, I see this collective pool, each green to the table, and not uniqueness to bring the innovation to keep things fresh, to offer the products that players are going to want, you know, in varied, very fashion, to be that economic driver that the legislature was hoping for both through revenue and some jobs. I think we learned that this is going to be hard to create the types of jobs we saw with the expanded gaming, but there will be opportunity and we can keep track of that. I feel as though they all were really responsive as to our values. I don't think we're unique. And so I want to make sure our fellow regulators across the country, we hear them, they're caring so much about responsible gaming and advertising the impact on unused and vulnerable populations. They share that with us. But Commissioner Hill, you're right. We put diversity out there as a unique piece of our application, because we wanted to hear the details and the commitment. And I credit Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Mayer for staying on top of that discussion throughout our entire review. The responsible gaming, we have the benefit of such great in-house expertise. But again, the applicants, as you say, were responsive. So and then in terms of their technology, their platforms, some more tested than others. But from my perspective, that brings the overall landscape into well balanced. You know, we'll have a little bit of newcomers with some, and again, five years experienced innovators. So I was thrilled with the pool. We thought there might be many, many more than our limit of seven. But perhaps the market itself granted us this particular pool. And I am just very, very pleased with the overall quality and diversity of the applicants. So with that, I'm going to turn to Todd, because this there is a reason why we thought about it individually and then we thought about it collectively. And I don't want to forget that Commissioner O'Brien wants to turn to our sense report. But I did have one other comment that I wanted to make before I went to that. Commissioner Skinner started this concept, Commissioner Hill circled back to it in terms of conceptualizing the process. And I just wanted to say that for me, the was the was the submission and the presentation sufficient is a different question. That's what's going to be before us momentarily on substantial evidence. And there are the three components there. And so Commissioner Skinner, to the extent that you're asking a question, and maybe you weren't, you were just stating your your summary of sort of how you looked at this process. I do feel like what we're doing today is a step beyond what we have done since January 3rd. It requires us to not only look individually and collectively, but also in relation to the licensees and the other applicants who came before them in this process. And in particular, I I do it under a lens of going back to one of the first things we heard of when the statute was put into effect, which was the presentation from Sigma about what are the economic benefits and the potential harms. And I hear the Commissioner Maynard, and I think this speaks to his eternal optimism in my pessimistic nature. But there are going to be economic benefits and they're going to be harms. And I guess I don't view it as in the same lens in terms of I worry about the harm that's going to come from a nation industry coming in where we learn from Sigma that the vulnerable population is sort of this younger twenties where the brain is still developing consequences, et cetera. And so well, I share your enthusiasm to some extent. I guess I am the naysayer of the five where I am more cautious in saying you've got six viable, unique interesting applicants who satisfy the minimum criteria and therefore we're good to go. So I I say that as saying I do think there is more room for analysis, comparative analysis, et cetera, beyond just what we have done with saying they each came in and forthrightly presented and answered our questions. So before we moved into Todd's conversation, I just wanted to make that comment. And that's a perfect segue because I did want to make sure that everybody understood the three step process again, and Commissioner O'Brien is absolutely right. You know, we've done the individual threshold, but there's that ultimate and we're familiar with it because we we used it in the assessment of the tethered in the category one applicants. But there's just this additional piece, given the untethered competitive assessment of these applications. So, Todd, I think this is a good time for us to just revisit the process. No votes that have been taken yet. Conditions haven't been discussed. So why don't we go over the and I'll ask where my fellow commissioners want to go. My suggestion is for you to go over the process. Second, we'll revisit whether we want to go into executive session. And then three maybe take a short break. How does that all sound before we go on to our next piece of work? Okay, but right now I want to hear from Todd. Okay, thanks, Commissioner O'Brien. I appreciate that. Okay. Thanks, Todd. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner. So now we'll review the legal provisions and principles that govern the final decision making. As we've done a number of times now, we can begin with the factors and sub factors articulated in section two eighteen point oh six subsection five. The ultimate question is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the award of sports majoring operator license to a particular applicant would benefit the Commonwealth. That's the now familiar umbrella standard that has to be met in order for an applicant to be permitted to go forward. In reaching that decision, though, of course, the regulations direct that the following factors and sub factors have to be considered. First is the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports majoring, including the applicant's background in sports majoring, the applicant's experience and licensure and other jurisdictions with sports majoring, and the applicants proposed sports majoring operation or description technical features and operation of its sports majoring platform. The second factor is the economic impact and other benefits to the Commonwealth, if the particular applicant is awarded a license, including any employment opportunities within the Commonwealth, the projected revenue from majoring operations and tax revenue to the Commonwealth, and any community engagement. The third factor is the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming. And those include the applicant's responsible gaming policies, the applicant's advertising and promotional plans and the applicant's history of demonstrated commitment to responsible gaming. Next is the description of the applicant's willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender diversity, equity and inclusion, including within the applicant's own workforce, through the applicant's supplier spend and in the applicant's corporate structure. Next is the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation, including its geo fencing plans, its know your customer measures and any technological expertise and reliability is demonstrated. And next is the suitability of the applicant and qualifiers and of course, we'll come back to this one in a moment. But the sub factors include whether the applicant can be or has been determined suitable in accordance with 205 CMR 215, the applicant and all parties in interest to the licensee, the license's integrity, honesty, good character and reputation, the applicant's financial stability, integrity and background, the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain a successful sports way during operation. The applicant's history of compliance with gaming or sports way during licensing requirements and other jurisdictions and whether the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving business practices. And that the final factor in the standard factors or any other appropriate factors commission in its discretion, elects to review. And as we've discussed now, a couple of times in the case of these untethered category three applicants, there's that additional factors that commission just discussed as well. And that factor is set out in section 218.06, it's subsection six of the regulation. And it directs that the commission take into consideration the variations between the applicants as they relate to any other sports way during licensee applicants or licensees and how granting any particular application or combination of applications would maximize overall benefits and minimize overall harms or the risk of harms to the commonwealth. So those are all of the factors that the commission has to consider. But before we move on, I just wanted to go back to that suitability factor for a moment. Of course, you'll recall that section 215 provides for those two types of suitability, the durable finding and the preliminary finding. In order to achieve that durable finding, which is essentially the final finding of suitability, if you will, an applicant would have to have demonstrated its suitability and that of its qualifiers by clear and convincing evidence at an adjudicatory proceeding. None of the applicants before you here today have done that and understandably so. Accordingly, as a practical matter, it's really the preliminary finding of suitability that is in play with these applicants. The preliminary finding, of course, essentially allows the applicant to proceed with its operation, while a thorough background investigation is performed by the IEB, ultimately leading to a review by the commission at an adjudicatory proceeding. In order to achieve the preliminary finding, the regulations direct that the commission consider the certifications of suitability submitted by the applicant and its qualifiers, as well as the contents of the IEB's written report relative to each applicant, as the commission has done throughout the course of these discussions. Of course, all of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence. And you'll remember that substantial evidence means such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. And that review is to be based on the entire administrative record before you, which at this point is comprised of the application materials themselves, including any supplemental materials that have been submitted to the commission. But it also includes the discussion and presentations that were made during the course of these proceedings, dating from January 6. Finally, I'd just like to address the license conditions that attach to the award of any license. Conditions are addressed in section 220 of the commission's regulations. You'll recall, of course, that there are a series of automatic conditions that apply to every licensee, and then there are conditions that are unique to specific licensees. So let's talk about the automatic conditions first. And those are as follows. A, that the operator obtain an operation certificate before conducting any sports wagering in the common. B, that the operator comply with all terms and conditions of its license and operation certificate. C, that the operator comply with general law chapter 23 and in all rules and regulations of the commission. D, that the operator make all required payments to the commission in a timely manner and notably in the case of these applicants that would include the $1 million temporary license fee. E is that the operator maintain its suitability to hold the sports wagering license. And F is that the operator conducts sports wagering in accordance with its approved system of internal controls consistent with 205 CMR and in accordance with its approved house rules in accordance with chapter 23 and section 10A and otherwise consistent with 205 CMR. So at this point, commissioners, if you'll want to ensure that you establish any independent or unique conditions for each of the applicants prior to taking a final vote, just so you there's a clear understanding as to what all the terms and conditions per applicant would look like before you move into the final vote. And then it would be sensible to take each applicant on its own. Each applicant, of course, has to stand on its own and meet the standards I just described on its own in order to be permitted to move forward with the process. So with that, Madam Chair, the ultimate question will become whether there is substantial evidence for each applicant to find that it would benefit the Commonwealth to award a license to that applicant viewed through the lens of all of the factors and sub factors I have described. So let me pause there. We'll see if there are any questions and otherwise I'll turn it back over to you, Madam Chair. Questions for Councillor Grasen. So he's outlined our process we're familiar with with it. Commissioner O'Brien, I want to be respectful of your request to go back into an executive session to discuss the protected portions of their report. We now have the structure of our of our analysis of our in our evaluation and our decision making before us. Todd can go back and we visit any of that again just to refresh our memory. Does it make sense? And it's 1130 now to take a short break and then move into the executive session. Perhaps we should. Maybe we should discuss whether or not we want to move into the second session. Now take and then if we vote to go into that session, we'll we'll move right into that that room after our break with the anticipated anticipated that we return to the public session. Michelle O'Brien, do you like that? OK. Yeah. That's all right. So could you just explain what you would like so that we can be a little bit precise for Todd? Sure. What I was interested in having a further discussion with my fellow commissioners on was so much of RSM's presentation yesterday as was on, I believe, pages 15 and 16 at the very end. I guess it would be 14. Slide 14. The deck, right? It was it was sort of the overall. I mean, respectfully, it had to do with a lot of the comparative analysis that I just we've never discussed as a group that I I personally would, you know, because I am on the fence about something, I want to have that conversation in terms of the relative economic impact. So it pertains to the entirety of what RSM gave us an executive session, primarily the end of the presentation starting with slide 12. Do you want to have RSM on? Do you need RSM to join us? If they're available, that would be great. But at a minimum, I'd love to have the conversation with my fellow commissioners about what they presented yesterday. OK. And Crystal, anyone? I just need to call Deb. I think he had someone on standby, but give me a few minutes. Yeah. And we're going to take a little bit of a break anyway, Crystal. Todd, so that all is part of the protected portion of the report that RSM gave us yesterday. Yes, it is. And if it would be helpful, I can just try to hash out the rationale based on what Commissioner O'Brien has just addressed that you would be going to executive session to discuss. And so I think I would frame it as that it's expected that the commission for purposes of engaging in its final review of these six applications collectively would move into executive session to discuss specific information associated with each of these applications and collectively so that it can perform its consolidated assessment as well as individual assessments relative to the financial projections, the trends to some extent the methodologies that replied in reaching those figures in that in as they relate to the following revenue projections, market share projections, any handle and hold percentages, the liquidity of the companies, the ratios associated with those figures, including any margins that have been identified for purposes of comparative analysis and the overall financial suitability and stability of each of these entities. And if that captures the landscape, then I would submit to you that that all comprises competitively sensitive information. It has all been provided in the course of these applications for licenses and that if this information were discussed publicly and disclosed, it would be detrimental to each of these applicants individually and collectively likely. Accordingly, it is appropriate to move into executive session under section six I of chapter 23 and for those purposes. Commissioners are do we have a general consensus that this would be helpful? Thank you. OK, then as you know, I have to read this into the record. The commission anticipates that it may meet an executive session in conjunction with its review of each of the category three untethered applications in accordance with G out, chapter 30, section 21, subsection seven and general laws, chapter 23 and section six, subsection I to consider information submitted by the applicants in the course of the respective applications or an operator license as examined by RSM US LLP in the context of any discussed financial metrics ratios or associated financial measures that are trade secret, competitively sensitive or proprietary in which it disclosed publicly would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission go into executive session for the matters and the reasons stated by General Council Grossman and yourself. Again. Thank you. Any discussion? Commissioner, Brian. I Commissioner Hill. Hi. We've got the commissioner Skinner. Hi. I can't see Commissioner Maynard. Hi. All right. So before we leave and join the breakout session, just a clarification that we will be returning to the public session after our own short break, but we're going to go right into the breakout room first, folks. And and after short break in and after our second session, we'll be back to the public meeting. Thank you so much, everyone. David, if you're there are some Connor Laughlin on and Theresa Merlino will be joining shortly if you want to move them into the executive session. OK, sounds good. Thank you very much. David, this is Theresa Merlino. I'm not sure if I can get transferred to the to the executive session, please. Sure thing. All set then. No, sir. Dave, it looks like we are all set here. The breakout rooms have closed and we're good to go. OK, so this is a reconvening of Massachusetts getting commissions meeting that look back and our first was January 6th. This is our public meeting number 425 and because we're holding it virtually. I need to take a roll call. Commissioner O'Brien, I am here. Commissioner Hill, I'm here. Mr. Skinner, I'm here. Commissioner Maynard, I'm here. OK, so as I said, it's we've been really working on the review of the six untethered category three sports wagering licenses applications. And we're at that juncture where we are kind of the final decision making process. We just convened a relatively it was pretty robust discussion and executive session on the finance piece. Michelle O'Brien, I think that your questions were answered. I do believe there was one piece that was slightly on the public side, and that was a review of really the bankruptcy slides that got reviewed yesterday. And then there was one procedural question I wanted to bring up when you're ready. Yeah. So, Todd, if we need to go into any more detail on the bankruptcy slides, we can address that. But otherwise, we convene that and had our lunch and now we're back. And our last portion of our public meeting Council Grossman outlined the process for us as we continue our decision making earlier today. You weren't with us we did go through sort of our final review of independent consideration of each application. And then we looked at them to a collective lens. And now we're returning that discussion, keeping in mind the process that Todd I'll work for you. OK, Michelle O'Brien. So the question that I had procedurally was if for any reason an applicant is not affirmatively awarded a license today, we know we have at least one potential untethered license that falls with under the cap. As to that one or anyone else who maybe doesn't, if anyone doesn't get a license today. What is the process? And have we, you know, what when is that going to be addressed in terms of what happens with that one that's left over and or if anyone doesn't of these six is not affirmatively awarded one today. Well, I don't know if we have that process established. I don't think that's addressed in the regulation. We have the authority to issue up to seven. Would it be a reg that we would like kind of what we see in the gaming world. But we have up up to seven. And I think the commission could revisit, revisit that and whether or not we open up another competitive procurement or selection process. We haven't addressed that. So I can't say that we can affirmatively answer that today. Council Grossman chime in. Well, I would just add there is actually a regulation that talks about the commission setting the deadlines, which, of course, we used in the first instance to set the deadlines for the filing of these applications. And I think you could make use of the same provision for the any available untethered licenses that are outstanding. And it's in two eighteen point oh two, which says that an application has to be filed on or before an applicable deadline established by the commission, if any. And then we go into a little bit more detail there. So I do think you you could certainly address that in some fashion, perhaps at the conclusion, not today necessarily, but of these proceedings as to how the commission would like to handle any remaining licenses under that seven cap. OK, so wouldn't necessarily require new regs so much as a new consensus of moving forward. If that if people chose to do that, if we as a commission chose to do that. Yeah, or you could come out and say we were not accepting any applications until further notice something like that or you could set a deadline or a variety of different options. OK, thank you. OK, let's talk substance, then. Commissioners, do you have any further thoughts, concerns with respect to either the to the collective lens that we were looking at the field as though everybody had a chance to speak their piece, but we can certainly now. Reflect that we had the opportunity to consider the financials and the comparative lens. We also had that review last night at the end of the day yesterday. Is there anything. That you want to raise with respect to these applications? Mr. Hill is saying no, Mr. Skinner. No. Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Maynard. Well, I would say that for me, the the financial analysis didn't change my view of the applicants. Each applicant's role in a collective, through a collective lens is being, again, a very strong pool. Different, but collectively strong and individually strong. So I was very happy to have the executive session to just go through those numbers one more time. OK, so, Todd, you've outlined the process. As I understand it, then. The commission has to be determined on an individual basis, whether the criteria in 205 CMR to 1806 of sections five and six demonstrate that the award of a license would benefit the commonwealth. Also have to establish qualification for preliminary suitability in accordance with 205 CMR to 1501 paragraph two and two 18.07 paragraph one a. I did think it from recta lilios is available. Someone for IEB might be helpful for them to confirm that all the certifications have been submitted as required under the suitability. I can reach out to Loretta, Madam Chair, hold on a second. And then at the end, of course, the granting of the license as it relates to the other applicants and licensees would maximize the overall benefits and minimize overall harms or risks arms to the commonwealth. In other words, the benefits outweigh risks. And we would do that on an individual basis, Tom, and with the standard substantial evidence standard review. That's correct. The only other thing outstanding madam chair, and I'm not sure if you intended to do this applicant by applicant, is whether there are any unique conditions that you would like to attach to any award of the license. And I do have a few notes here. We can we can walk through when we get to that. Does it make sense to do that first before we start the individual process? I'm comfortable with doing that first. I see Commissioner Bryan is nodding her head. Great. I think it would help to jog our memory about the stuff we talked about. Excellent. Well, we're just waiting to see him from IEP. Todd, do you want to go ahead? Sure. If we're going to start with ballies, I didn't have notes on any specific unique. Well, let me let me back up. I have to step if I may. So there were in some cases we identified or the Commission identified condition slash supplemental information that it was looking for. So if a piece of supplemental information was provided as the Commission reviewed earlier today, that matter was reviewed removed from the list once the Commission agreed that that satisfied the outstanding concern. So the list I'll walk through are just issues that could not really be satisfied by way of supplemental information that the Commission identified as part of your earlier discussion that you might want to attach as a licensed condition. So with that, I didn't have anything for ballies. There were obviously areas they supplemented, but nothing outstanding on my list. Should should you do all of them so that we just think about the conditions? I think that's Commissioner Bryant's thinking the same way. I am maybe it will just go through any that was listed because we may realize we want to attach it to someone else and I don't want to. OK, I'd rather hear the whole list. So absolutely. So I had a couple of I'll start with to that point a couple of just general conditions that might attach to every applicant. And one was a collaboration with the state lottery, whether we want to develop some language that would apply there. And that was certainly an issue that's come up. Some of the applicants described a proposal. Others just agreed that they would do it. That might be an area that we want to just shore up a bit and ensure that everyone is required to do that. The other one, and this is an area that I believe was the satisfactory, but as it pertains to the workforce, supplier diversity goals, the Commission may. We can do this by way of regulation as well, but you could attach a condition that essentially requires a compliance with established goals and periodic reporting as instructed or directed by the Commission. So those were two areas that you may be inclined to attach a condition to each of the applicants. Those might be more universal conditions. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask if you could repeat that one, please. Sure, the second one relates to the workforce and supplier diversity goals that were discussed at length in the context of each applicant. And I think you determined this morning that you were satisfied with the goals that were established, but you may at this juncture elect to set a condition on each of them that requires compliance with those goals and periodic reporting as directed by the Commission. And again, that is something we could do by way of regulation, but it would also be appropriate to do in this context. So those are those were the two notes I had relative to potential universal conditions for all of the applicants. The ones that I can go through now are specific to each individual applicant. And again, I didn't have any specific ones for ballys. They were asked to supplement their application in a variety of ways. And I believe you determined that they satisfied all of those requests. For better, there was and I'd have to pull up the exact case, but there was a they go live in Ohio. There were a couple of issues that arose and there was an interest in any material changes to that status being updated that was addressed by way of supplement. But I just wanted to ensure that you were all satisfied with that supplement. The other issue that came up, you'll recall that Mr. Paul is an active participant in the arena of unarmed combat. And there was some discussion as part of the review of that application, potentially attaching a condition that better not offer any sports in which or specific events in which Mr. Paul may be involved, perhaps as either a fighter, promoter or other participant. That's all I had for better. As it pertains to fan dual, there was a question about their DFS registration, you recall, and it was determined that they did actually register with the commission and for reasons that are understandable and reasonable. They haven't yet paid the retroactive taxes. That may be a condition that they make payment of those or that is certainly covered under the separate body of law, but that was the only outstanding issue I had for that. As it pertains to the draft Kings application, there was a discussion about a matter before the Ohio casino control commission that was ongoing, and there may be an interest in attaching a condition that they provide periodic updates as to any material activities related to that particular case. Before you go on, Todd, in terms of going back to Fandall. The issue that remained to be determined, we determined that last week, correct? In terms of the calculation and what the figure would be and how budget was going to do the figure. So it seems to be like they're in a position to pay now. I just wanted to because I'm wondering if it's a pretty straightforward condition, if it's something that can happen pretty quickly. And I thought we all voted on the resolution to that last week. So did Commissioner O'Brien. We didn't. We had the preliminary. We had a follow up discussion to the preliminary one with an understanding that we would bring the matter back or vote at a later meeting. That's my recollection. OK. Because I still. I think what came in front of us was that the DFS was in a vote. Yeah, we didn't take. OK, before. OK. All right, I thought we did. My bad. That's why it says we're looking they're looking for still outstanding guidance from us. Oh, I know. I just that predated our meeting last week. So I thought we had resolved the matter. No, not quite. We're getting closer, though. Yeah, that's really need to be a license condition of a sports weight dream operator license. But it was just the last outstanding thing. I mean, they are obliged to do that one way or the other. It would just look strange to not be in compliance with one area of tax payment and then authorize it to go off on another venture. So maybe that's a separate reg to just make sure that any DFS. Operator is also up to date with their. Tax payments. Right. I think they've shown the intent that they they intend to be up to date. I think now they're waiting for us. So we Karen, can we just make a note that come up on agenda setting this morning? Thanks. Sorry to ask you to do that, but I'm afraid I'll forget. So the next one pertains to the Digital Gaming Corp. DGC. You talked about the supergroup attestations and certifications. I believe the information was that those were satisfied. There were a number of items described in their supplemental submission. Some of the information is competitively sensitive, but there were other pieces of information in there that may be prime for a licensed condition. For example, for example, the transferability of any prospective license. That might be one area that would be appropriate to attach a condition to in the event. A license were awarded and they weren't able to commence operations in March, that there be a restriction on their ability to transfer a license and they have, in fact, agreed to that. And finally, the points bet application, the last outstanding matter had on them related to the marketing of their product on college campuses and they pledged not to engage in any marketing activity on any college or university campuses in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So that would certainly be an appropriate condition here as well. And that is those are my notes as to some of the issues that may be appropriate for licensed conditions. Does anyone else remember Commissioner, I mean, maybe I'll ask this of you directly, Commissioner O'Brien, I seem to recall you asking points that to reduce that commitment to a writing. And it just dawned on me. I don't know if we discussed whether it was received or not. I believe they did address the issue. I don't know if they committed in that fashion, but that's it. That's a good point, Commissioner. I don't think they memorialized anything in writing, but they did during the meeting. Affirm that they were going to comply with that request. So it could be a condition I was thinking going back to Commissioner Maynard's comment about treating them all equally. Some of them don't do it at all, but I'm wondering if that's a more general. I know we have it in a reg that's coming up to vote pretty soon. So it would be a reg compliance issue very shortly. So I think it should either be applying to everybody and or a reference to the reg that's forthcoming. So I to that point on transferability, I appreciate that the issue may seem more relevant because this applicant has stated that it would cover a later start date. But I think transferability is, I believe, addressed by statute or we have if we're going to attach a regulation. I mean, a condition we would do it to all of them because it wouldn't really the issue around transferability isn't doesn't pertain necessarily to not offer it, right? Yeah, there are there. Well, you haven't looked at that reg yet. I think you're going to do so next week relative to the transfers of interest. It is described in the statute and of course, the reg just talks about the process under which the commission may allow such a transfer. It's very similar to the process that appears on the gaming side that you've actually used a number of times. But in this case, the question is just whether you would allow the license to be transferred at all. OK, that's helpful. And then I think I raised earlier that should we consider a condition for start date given that they are not starting and I will be very clear. We did not require starting. It wasn't part of our application, so I'm not necessarily it's not necessarily. Sorry for me to attach that condition. Wanted to ask that question to the extent it might get any if there is any level of discomfort around start date. You know, provide that. But otherwise, I'm fine without that. OK. Commissioner, Brian, are you? No, I was the same sort of idea. Like there's maybe another one or two. Tethered or untethered that may not be as established. And so there you could arguably say that the condition should apply to them as well. So I think we either put an outside timeline. You launch within 18 months of the license or else whatever or or we just let it go with the statute's restrictions on how you go about transferring a license. On any suggestions? I think that the process you'll see in a week's time will cover you. There are provisions that under which you could determine that the transferee is not and I don't have the exact language in front of me, but it wouldn't be in the interest of the Commonwealth essentially to allow such a transfer and or the transferee, of course, has to undergo its suitability review, just like any other licensee and or might need to submit an updated application. So I think you are covered under what I anticipate will become essentially the transfer of interest regulations. But that was just an issue that came up and they did agree to that. So I certainly wanted to mention. Just a question hypothetically, if a licensee gets it gets a mobile license awarded today, pays the million dollar for the temp license, doesn't launch. What, if any, recourses the commission have, it would be what if they came back and said we want to extend the temp license, even though we didn't launch. That we would then put a condition on to say temp arguably, well, you've got six months or else. No. Well, it's an interesting question because it's a license to engage in certain activity. It's not a mandate that anyone do. So it's like your driver's license in that respect. You don't have to drive, but you're allowed to. And so. Yeah, that it's it's an I guess an open question if someone were to take a license pay that what would be five million dollars eventually, and then for whatever reason decide they didn't want to use. Right. But a million dollars during the the temporary pending stability. Right. Yes, you would be able to catch them again during the renewal process. That's right. Well, to that, to respond to your answer. I was a gross man. They may have a license, but you say that they can decide whether or not to drive, right? That probably isn't to the con less benefit. Doesn't necessarily maximize benefits. So is there are there some guardrails that we should be erecting to make sure that they drive safely? We you certainly could. There's no reason to believe that anyone wouldn't want to actually operate. But I suppose you could mandate that. Yeah, so back to the idea should do we do we need to have a condition that at least a commitment to start and then they could revisit if there's real trouble for any particular. No. I don't. Yes, I wasn't really thinking about it. You just raised it that way. I mean, I think it's something that we can address if it becomes an issue. I I don't I don't even know precisely how. You would do that other than. Saying you must start by a certain date, but there might be reasons why they couldn't, I suppose. Right. All reasonable reasons, right? So we want that. Which is I'm I'm not seeing any particular guardrails. Are you thinking of any or you're not concerned? To be blunt, I'm not concerned about this. Good. OK. I hear that it will be there would come back around. I think I'm just going to leave it at this, which is as simple as I can make it. I will be really upset if someone tries to induce us to give it a license to them. Only to use that as a marketing tool to leverage or sell. And I would weigh that in any decision I made in my ability to grant a transfer or not grant a transfer. That's how I would say it. Or a renewal, right? Or a renewal. But I don't think that's what we've got in front of us. So that's why Commissioner Hill, I'm leaning toward you. I just I just thought we should probably explore this a little bit. Commissioner Skinner, any thoughts? I think we have what will what are the makings anyway of a guard of a guard rail guard rails as has just been recited. So I'm not particularly concerned about this issue at the moment, either. All right. So. Can I ask we're going to maybe impose a license for them to provide notice of material changes in certain matters, I think both concerned Ohio, two different applicants. Director Williams, is that something that they would normally have to do anyway? And I didn't mean to catch off guard. And I apologize, you did catch me off guard. So I know you're talking about the somebody licensing becoming operational. But could you repeat the? Yeah, well, this is this is different now. We switch. OK. This is the question about imposing a condition where we ask the applicant to to give us notice of material change in certain matters. I think both relate to relating to two different applicants, but both relating to the state of Ohio. Is that information that you'd expect them to give us in the normal course of their in fact that I think that's part of the duty to report regulation and our Chief Enforcement Council has already been in touch with a couple of the applicants about particular matters that have been discussed in these open meetings already. So we do get notified. We expect to be notified of discipline matters in the Ohio matter, in particular. We're in touch with the applicants about ongoing updates. So what we are not what they are not obligated to tell us is if another jurisdiction gives a notice of intent or something equivalent of a notice of intent to impose discipline. But once discipline is imposed, there is an obligation to report. Only at the end. When the action is taken or when an agreement or settlement is reached. So I guess I wonder if those conditions are are necessary or could they be somehow confusing because it's part of their ongoing duty to disclose in any case. If it's an exclamation point, you know, redundancy that we want. What do you think? Then the other one that you asked about, Todd, I'm going to turn to you on whether it's a good idea to have a redundancy. And then I think the one that I'm interested in, that commission is inclined to adopt it would be with respect to Mr. Paul. But I'm not sure if there's we take just to find a general consensus about imposing that. Condition. Because I think for me, the language would certainly matter. For sure, for sure, Brian. My memory on that condition was I think Commissioner Hill is the one that raised the concern. And there was a representation by the company that at this stage they were not going to be accepting bets at all. That's right. For that league. And so I wonder if it's a condition like that. That if they get to the point where they feel they have guardrails in place where they now want to be able to do anything other than what he's involved in, they come back. I don't. That's my memory of the representation that was made by them. And mine as well. So really moralizing what they offered up. Sorry, but I think they we had brought up that a condition. And I think they actually agreed to it if I remember correctly, but I'd have to go back and see if that's true or not. I guess that's why I'm asking the specific words because the league versus what Bob just said, that's a little bit different. So I guess it would be go ahead. It would be the lead. Go ahead. Sorry. Go. Brad, say it because you were more tuned into this point. It's the league because you have different you have different leagues of the same sport. So you could be I'm using example in MAA could have like different divisions underneath that different leagues underneath it. So the wording would be more to do with the league that he's fighting in than the sport that he's fighting. That makes sense. And I think it was more general the offer they gave and their stated plan was more general than particular. They they foresaw a time they might be able to go be particular as to his. Competitions only, which I don't think anybody in this commission opined on what we would say to that. But at present, they said their functioning mode is to not allow bets for the league. But I mean, if somebody can pull the their hearing to get what they actually said. Councilor Grossman has some. Well, you have experience in this particular I was just going to say in the in the context of MMA and boxing, there aren't really leagues per se. There are different promotions. There and there are sanctioning bodies like the WBO, the IBF and the WBA. And then there's the UFC. But locally, there's a ton of local promotions that Mr. Paul or anyone could fight for. So, you know, with the exception of certain fighters who sign up with the UFC and have exclusive deals, there aren't really leagues in the classic sense in the world of unarmed combat sports. So what you would want to ensure to the extent this is of concern is that better not offer. Fights that Mr. Paul has any or wagering on any fights that Mr. Paul has any involvement. Because you can't really pinpoint what league, if you will, that would be or what promotion he might be involved with at any point in time. I think he has he has a contract. Yes, right. Yeah, you know, but those that could I we didn't I didn't see the contract. It could be for a year. It could be for two years. And it's hard to tell how long have you associated with that particular promotion. Madam chair, I would I would be I would have an appetite. To draw a circle around Mr. Paul, as well as. Perhaps even a card he was on. But I don't think that I would have to counsel Grossman's point. I don't think I would have much of an appetite to draw it around entire leagues or or promotions. So better way to put it. Yeah, we started the conversation directly around Mr. Paul's involvement with better. But if I remember correctly, the discussion developed more broadly into sponsorships promotions by celebrities, other athletes. So I think there was a recognition at the time that we were under educated around that whole area. So I you know, I think I don't know if we have regulations upcoming to consider that deal with that subject matter and its entirety. But I think if we are planning to add a condition to this, to to to any license that might be granted to better, I think we need to be absolutely certain of the language that we want to use around that condition, because we do want it to be effective. And not just, you know, something that doesn't make any sense. I'm going to point something else out here, too, to that point, Mr. Skinner, you just click something in my brain. I don't know if an owner of any of these other organizations perhaps own a horse, right, or, you know, are involved in any other kind of, I know we're not settled on whether that's coming into play or not. But if they fight in the USC, right, so I would be a little careful on how we treat this. I believe that he announced with respect to Mr. Folly, now he's making a professional MMA debut with the PF, which is the Professional Fighter's League. That did come in front of us. I just wanted to clarify that there was this, this, this lead to Commissioner Hill's initial, you know, point in terms of setting up in terms of Commissioner Skinner's point. I am a little concerned about just focusing on Mr. Paul because I believe we had another athlete that was associated with a different applicant, maybe not one of these six. I don't think that's the case, but, you know, we didn't attach a condition with respect to that particular athlete. But I think Commissioner Skinner is talking maybe more broad guidance. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I think I might be more inclined to, to, as long as there are the proper governance around conflicts and making sure that the integrity of the events are preserved. I'm not so much concerned about the celebrity aspect, but I would be, you know, Commissioner Skinner's point, I think being informed about that. But right now, I haven't guessed that it's a condition. I really do need to understand it as it applies to Mr. Paul and not as it applies to other athletes because, you know, they could be signing up somebody, somebody, another applicant could be, you know, part of this. So, Madam Chair, let's say we don't put a condition on, which if we don't put a condition on, and for whatever reason, he was in a fight and there was a conflict or an ethnic violation. Do we have an MGL or a CMR in place that would analyze that situation? And if there is, I'm okay not putting a condition. I'm wondering if we should do it more broadly because I don't think we do, Commissioner Hill, to answer your question and to your point, Madam Chair, conflict of interest and integrity issues are exactly why we started having this conversation. In fact, I raised the issue of conflicts of interest given Mr. Paul's involvement with better. And so I think, you know, to be comprehensive here, I think we do need to understand what is happening. And again, it's not just for the sake of targeting any celebrity or just being against celebrity endorsements and sponsorships and the like. But we do need to understand that as it may relate to any conflict of interest or integrity concerns. I mean, the fact is the company did at least try and reassure us that that would never happen. Right. But we could put the rag in place to your you know, we should have that rag in place because I suspect these kinds of reimbursement may be a part of the industry. And so we need to regulate it to preserve the integrity of the sport and the bats, right? Being that this is a new industry. Yeah, we need to understand it before we attempt to regulate it. So, Tony Grossman. Should we add this to the list and of our regulations rather than making it a condition on this one? I think that's what I would like to see happen, Madam Chair. I think that that's a good approach. And Commissioner Hill, they did. They definitely heard, you know, your concerns and Commissioner Skinner's concerns very clearly. So for right now, the message has been delivered, but we can have a good regulation of place. I'm comfortable. I'm comfortable with that. OK, the other commissioners, are we all set? The only thing I wondered was whether it's OK to have a redundancy about requiring two applicants with potential licensees to get back to IEB. Are we good with the ongoing discussion? Requirement. I'm good with the controls we have in place already relative to continuing duty to report. So I don't think it to be added to the as a condition on any of the to either of the two licenses, potential licenses. As am I, Madam Chair. OK, Commissioner Graham. Yeah, same for me. OK. OK, great. We just eliminate all those conditions then with discussion. Did we cover material changes to the go live status in Ohio for better, better? I thought that was the same, but maybe it's different. I thought it was different. But it's Commissioner Grimes. Well, they they went live and then they gave us the update. So I think it's moved, isn't it? I mean, unless if they get the license, then they if there's any material change in terms of. Compliance issues, compliance, they would have to bring it forward to have an obligation to bring it forward. Did we have a marketing on college campuses? Sorry, if I missed it. Did we have to? Of course, the advertising reg is coming up before the Commission tomorrow. I'd have to go back and look at it, but that might be something that and it might be in there right now. I just don't have a clear memory that would seemingly apply to every operating that we could just make sure is covered in there. I like it in the bag, Commissioner Bryan, do you feel the same way, maybe rather than a condition? I'm trying to bring up the draft reg right now. I I believe it's in there. If it's not in there, I would want a condition. So but. I mean, we're voting on this tomorrow. So we all seem to be in agreement that we want it in there. Don't know if we have any of our reg attorneys on the line who could answer that question very quickly. I think what Todd suggested is that if it isn't in, we can all agree that we're going to get it. That's what I'm saying. It seems like we're all in agreement. It's so it is. It's in for. D. Of the of the proposed reg, no advertising, marketing, branding or other promotional materials, published, air, display, disseminated or distributed buyer on behalf of any sportsway during operator should be published, air, display, disseminated or distributed. And D says on any college or university campus. Is that two fifty six or four? Did you say? It's yeah, two fifty six back to. Is it six two fifty six point oh five four D in the draft reg, I believe. So are we good? Not imposing it as a conditional across the board. Yeah. And then I think, Madam Chair, the only change then would be what happens to Caesars, who I believe was subjected to that rule because it was way where we didn't know we were going to have it in the reg yet, given their past history, as do we go back and strike the condition because now it's compliant. We can let that right. Just something I think we need to table to make sure everything is. Con, I think we're called that there will be written decisions prepared for all of these licenses, which articulate the conditions. And when we get to Caesars, we can strike it. Of course, the commission will do that publicly, so that should be something we can cover. Excellent. Thank you. All right. So that those are the potential conditions. And now we would go through each applicant to see if we find substantial evidence to support those factors that you listed. Correct, Con? Chair, I just have another question. I'm sorry, did we cover supergroup and the attestations? Oh, you know what? I think that's why you originally called Director Lillios on. I just, I just want to look at it. I'm so sorry. Thank you so much. I moved right on. Yes. Thank you. I thought it would be a good idea as we get, you know, we were going to get to suitability. Let's do it now. So we don't keep Loretta waiting. But as you know, commissioners, we, one of the factors is that we do have to think about and find support if we're going to visualize that some of the substantial evidence to support of finding a preliminary suitability. And what that means and what it takes is outlined in the regulation, which we actually went over yesterday. Thank you very much. As we revisited and finalized that regulation. So Loretta and Todd, if you just want to go over the suitability, that would be great. In terms of certifications that are needed. Loretta could report on receipt of it. I think that's one of the elements of the rag, right? Sure. So as, as you recall, the regulation for preliminary suitability relies in significant part on certifications to be submitted from each qualifier and from the applicant attesting to its belief about the suitability of all the other qualifiers itself and all the other qualifiers. All of the applicants have, we have all of those certifications at this point. I checked in with Kara this morning and those include the certifications from the supergroup qualifiers that are attached to the DGC application. That applicant was extremely not cooperative and providing those on short notice given that they did not receive their scoping designation letter until last Friday, given the new transaction that applicant was involved in. So I could report to you that that aspect of the regulation on the attestations or otherwise known as certifications has been satisfied by all of the applicants. Excellent. Thank you. Then the next element is the, so the reports themselves, correct, Todd? Other than that? Yes. So those are the two components, the certifications and then the report and the information. And the IEB has submitted to the commission for each applicant, its reports and in some cases, supplements, correct? Correna? That's right. And the reports covered the aspects mentioned in the regulation or directed in the regulation regarding the areas of self-disclosure gleaned from each of the applications. So all of those IEB reports on preliminary suitability have been submitted and to the commission previously. And I'll just ask my first question then the commissioners. I just want, I believe we learned this through our meetings, but full cooperation from all applicants, Loretta? The applicants have been very responsive. And as you know, these applications are extremely detailed. And there's a meticulous review performed by our licensing division. They've worked really hard with the applicants and the applicants have been responsive in this process. Great. Thank you. Questions for Director Lillios on the IEB's management of suitability and the preliminary suitability? I'll set. Any questions? Director Lillios, thank you. And I'm glad. Thank you, commissioners. It's going to be because you would have been sitting a little bit longer. So thank you so much. Thank you. Or else that. Okay. So now go through the factors again. Perhaps that might be a good reminder. Todd. Yeah. I'm sorry to do this again. There were two general conditions that were mentioned as potential items to discuss. And so do we want to deal with those now or? I don't remember that. So I'm going to have to get a hint. Thank you. I'm happy to. Thank you, commissioners Skinner. The two that I just made note of these were not things that the commission necessarily suggested. It definitely wanted to do, but one would be to collaborate with the state lottery. And the second related to compliance with established workforce and supplier diversity goals and periodic report. Yes. Thank you. I guess maybe I was thinking that that was a given. Commissioner Skinner. Yes. I thought it was really good, Todd, that you, out of those two general commissioners, what do we think? And then is there anything in the same vein that you might want to include? What do you think should we attach the lottery one? Let's tackle the lottery one. Yes. I'm sitting here thinking of myself. Do we even work that into a rag itself? I was going to say there's a way to do that. I'm sorry to cut you off, Mr. Maynard. No, sorry, sorry, Commissioner Skinner. I think I wanted to apply to everyone and I want to see what everyone's thinking about when it comes to this issue and how they're moving forward as we're going. So my only question on that is, do you need to talk to the lottery in terms of permandating some sort of interactions or cooperation with the lottery? Is that overstepping at all? We can certainly collaborate with them. We've talked to them about other things and I'm sure they'll be open to at least discussing the possibility. So yeah, I think that that could be done by way of regulation as could the workforce and supplier diversity goals in reporting. By regulation. You're saying that could be a problem with regulation as well? Yes. Do we have that regulation on the gaming side? Yes, we do. That's also in the statute though. So that one. The statute, and does it require it setting a goal and compliance? On the gaming side, yes. Compliance as well as reporting? I don't remember exactly what Chapter 23 says, but it's in the regulations and the statute in some fashion. I don't know if it's compliance so much as important. I think the compliance is what I'm wondering about. For that reason, this may be a better subject for a regulation so we can craft it a little bit more precisely and not just put it in place in this fashion here. Yeah, I agree. And I think just back to the lottery mitigation question, I think if we're going to do more than just require the licensees to develop a mitigation plan as they have in their application materials, then we need to certainly engage the lottery if we are going to put forth regulations instead. I agree with that. And I'm thinking about the MOUs that exist with the gaming licensees with them too. When we're talking about them, maybe that's a way to skin the proverbial cat is to look at potentially requiring the MOUs if the lottery is open to it. I'm looking at Todd. I know I'm looking at a bunch of screens but throwing some ideas out there. Yes, I know. I think we should probably anticipate developing a regulation that captures the essence of that collaboration and then kind of work with the lottery to refine it and move forward in that fashion. All of the applicants have committed to such a collaboration in some fashion and doing it by way of regulation would give them an opportunity to comment on whatever the proposal is as well. So that may be the sounder approach with that. I know there's statutory language in 23K relative to lottery mitigation but do we have a regulation that speaks to that on the gaming side? So the on the gaming side, the statute was actually fairly precise when it came to mitigating and working with the lottery. Again, I'm sorry. I don't remember exactly what it said but they as part of the application process, all the applicants had to commit to working with the lottery and maybe even executing the MOU that Commissioner Maynard referenced. So it was a little bit more prescriptive on that side but I think the commission as well within its authority to craft a similar requirement in this context. So we're all set then for those two great ideas that are as regs. So anything anything else with respect to conditions? I'm not seeing anyone raising any concern. Okay, so at this time then I would suggest that we begin the process of disposition unless there's some concern that one of you wish to raise. I don't have a concern. I just need to notify you Chair that I am going to be transitioning to the telephone for probably about 45 minutes or so in about in about in about 15 minutes for about 45 minutes. Thank you. Well let's see if we can go to disposition. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Okay, Councillor Grossman it would be helpful just to remind us of the factors we're familiar with them. They certainly certainly we've been addressing them over the course of our evaluation in many ways it's in our agenda where they're outlying on a high level without the sub factors for Steve. But do you want to walk us through and then what I would ask is that you consider whether we want to move on them on an individual basis. If Commissioner Skinner is in motion during that time we will hold our movement and take a short break till she can get situated if there's any kind of transition need. Commissioner Skinner we'll just take a short break till you get till you get in a good a good position. All right. Councillor Grossman can I turn to you for some guidance now? Absolutely. So the the oops sorry of course. Okay the ultimate question is whether a license award to a particular applicant would benefit the Commonwealth. And in making that determination you want to consider whether there's substantial evidence to support that conclusion viewed through the lens of the following factors. And I won't mention the sub factors we'll just get into the primary factors which are as follows. One is the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering, the economic impact and other benefits to the Commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license, the applicants propose measures related to responsible gaming, the applicants willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender diversity, equity and inclusion, the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation and the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers. And again when it comes to these untethered category three applicants there is that additional factor in which the commission directed that it will take into consideration the variations between the applicants as they relate to other sports wagering license applicants or licensees and how granting any particular application or combination of applications would maximize overall benefits and minimize overall harms or the risks of risk of harms to the Commonwealth. So those are the factors you're viewing this through the substantial evidence standard and again looking at the whether there is evidence of preliminary suitability as opposed to the durable finding of suitability. All right. So let's take a look at Folly's interactive. Do I have a motion to move toward an awarding a temporary license subject to the conditions that have been outlined earlier? Unless people want to continue the conversation I'm happy to move Madam Chair. Okay. Any further discussion before I'm at this emotion? Okay. Commissioner Bryan. Madam Chair I move that the commission find based on the record before us which includes the application submitted by the applicant Folly's including supplemental information as well as the information presented to the commission's public review of the application which commenced on January 6th that the applicant Folly's interactive has shown by substantial evidence that has satisfied the criterion set forth in Chapter 23N as well as 205CMR 218.06 subsections 5 and 6 demonstrating that the award of a license to it would benefit the Commonwealth second that it establishes qualifications for preliminary suitability in accordance with 205CMR 215.012 and 218.071A and three that has demonstrated that granting a license to it as it relates to the other applicants and licensees would maximize the overall benefits and minimize overall harms or risk of harm to the Commonwealth. This would thus make the applicant Folly's eligible to pursue a temporary license provided that this approval is subject to the conditions that are specifically set forth in 205CMR 220.01 and I believe that's it we had no other conditions. I have a second. Second. Thank you. Any questions, edits? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Huff. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Mater. Aye. And I vote yes. 5-0 for balance. Thank you. Okay. Let's turn then now to Betfair Interactive U.S. LLC Doing Businesses Fandal as we consider them for a temporary license. Do I have a motion? Certainly Madam Chair. I can move on them as well. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I move that the commission find based on the record before us including the application submitted by the applicant Betfair Interactive U.S. LLC including the supplemental information and information presented to the commission for public review of the applications which along with the others commenced on January 6th that the application the applicant Betfair Interactive U.S. LLC has shown by substantial evidence that it has satisfied the criteria set forth in Chapter 23N as well as 205CMR 218.06 subsections 5 and 6 demonstrating that the award of a license to it would benefit the Commonwealth. Second, that it has established its qualifications for preliminary suitability in accordance with 205CMR 215.012 and 218.071A and third, that it demonstrated granting a license to it as it relates to the other applicants and licensees would maximize overall benefits and minimize overall harms or risks of harm to the Commonwealth thus making the applicant eligible to pursue a temporary license provided that this approval is subject to the condition specifically set forth in 205CMR 220.01. Second. Thank you. Any questions or edits? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. 5-0 for Fandle. Okay. Now we go to Betfair. That are holding ink. Madam Chair, I'm happy to move on this one. Thank you, Commissioner. I move that the commission find based on the record before us which includes the application submitted by the applicant including supplemental information and the information presented during the commission's public review of the application which commenced on January 6th that the applicant that are holding ink has shown by substantial evidence that it has satisfied the criteria set forth in Chapter 23N as well as 205CMR 218.06 subsections 5 and 6 demonstrating that the award of a license to it would benefit the Commonwealth and that it has established its qualification for preliminary suitability in accordance with 205CMR 215.01. 2 and 218.071A and that it has demonstrated that granting a license to it as it relates to the other applicants and the licensees would maximize overall benefits and minimize overall harms or risk of harms to the Commonwealth. Thus making the applicant eligible to pursue a temporary license provided that this approval will be subject to the conditions specifically set forth in 205CMR 220.01. Period. I have a second. Second. Thank you. Any edits? Questions? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Before I vote I just want to say that I was conflicted on this application. I see the merits, the positives and the negatives. But at the end of the day I have concerns particularly about the last criterion in terms of on balance whether the overall benefits minimize the harms and risk of harms. I have concerns about the demographic and the tying of a sports celebrity to a group that is in that vulnerable age group. I wish we were seeing this applicant a little later on down the road. And so for those reasons I'm nay. Thank you. Commissioner Hill. Bye. Commissioner Skinner. Bye. Commissioner Maynard. Bye. And I vote yes. 441 and so that is better. Folders Inc. Moves on toward a license. Thank you. Now we have Crown MA Gaming LLC draft case. Do I have a motion? I can attempt to do this one Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I move that the commission find based on the record before us which includes the application submitted by the applicant. Including supplemental information and the information presented during the commission's public review of the application which commenced on January 6th that the applicant Crown MA Gaming LLC has shown by substantial evidence that it has one satisfied the criteria set forth in Chapter 23N as well as 205 CMR 218.06 subsections five and six demonstrating that the award of a license to it would benefit the Commonwealth. And two establish its qualification for preliminary suitability in accordance with 205 CMR 215.01 62 to 18.071A. And three demonstrated that granting a license to it as it relates to the other applicants and licensees would maximize overall benefits and minimize overall harms or risk or harms to the Commonwealth. Thus making the applicant eligible to pursue a temporary license provided that this approval will be subject to the condition specifically set forth in 205 CMR 220.01. Second. Any edits? Discussion. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. Aye. Michael. Yes. Five zero. Now we turn to Digital Gaming Corporation USA DGC. Do I have a motion? Chair, I move that the commission find based on the record before us which includes the application submitted by the applicant including supplemental information and the information presented during the commission's public review of the application which commenced on January 6th that the applicant has shown by substantial evidence that it has satisfied the criteria set forth in Chapter 23N as well as 205 CMR 218.06 subsections five and six demonstrating that the award of a license to it would benefit the Commonwealth. It has established its qualification for preliminary stability in accordance with 205 CMR 215.012 and 218.071A and that it has demonstrated that granting a license to it as it relates to the other applicants and licensees would maximize overall benefits and minimize overall harms or risk of harms to the Commonwealth. Thus making the applicant eligible to pursue a temporary license provided that this approval will be subject to the conditions specifically set forth in 205 CMR 220.01. Second. Thank you. Any edits or discussion? Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. Five zero and to our six applicant points that Massachusetts LLC do we have a motion regarding their temporary license here in Massachusetts? I can change. Oh, Commissioner Maynard. I move that the commission find based on the record before us which includes the application submitted by the applicant including supplemental information and the information presented during the commission's public review of the application which commenced on January 6th that the applicant points that Massachusetts LLC has shown by substantial evidence that it has one satisfied the criteria set forth in chapter 23 in as well as 205 CMR 218.06 subsections five and six demonstrating that the award of a license to it would benefit the Commonwealth to that it established its qualification for preliminary suitability in accordance with 205 CMR 215.01 subsection two and 218.07 subsection one subsection eight and demonstrated that granting a license to it as it relates to the other applicants and licensees would maximize overall benefits and minimize overall harms or risks of harms to the Commonwealth thus making the applicant eligible to pursue a temporary license provided that this approval will be subject to the conditions specifically set forth in 205 CMR 220.01 Second Mr. Skinner to care of it thanks Mr. Hill thank you Mr. Skinner any add-ins or discussion okay Mr. O'Brien Aye Mr. Hill Aye Mr. Skinner Aye Mr. Maynard Aye I vote yes five zero congratulations to my fellow commissioners I'm going to turn to congratulate the applicants and allow each of you to have a chance to speak but I first want to commend each of you for your dedicated work over this last state really months and weeks and well before the holidays it is January 19th and it's just about three PM or so and we've gotten through this process and we've done it with due diligence with a lot of grit a lot of probing a lot of inquiry and I think at the top of our list we've always always focused on the fact that this is a peerless privilege here in Massachusetts to be able to have a gaining license in that we would prioritize the integrity and of course the health and safety of any gaming patron here I don't think for a moment anyone deviated from those priorities and I have to say for me it's been a privilege to work with you on this and to see your dedicated commitment to those priorities so I thank you I know it's been a difficult difficult scheduling but as I mentioned in our agenda setting it's not an unhappy moment to be at an event at the state house yesterday and have people come up to me and applaud all of you the entire team my fellow commissioners all state employees for the hard work the long hours the endless hours and every evening we've been preparing and for that everybody should be really proud and for me I'm just extremely grateful so thank you now to the applicants really really excited that we had such a varied and strong pull of applicants and I'm delighted for each of them Karen the executive director is looking at me going but their work isn't finished there's a lot of work still ahead and those conditions won't hurt but we are excited about these new licensees coming into this gaming industry and we expect nothing but the work best from each of you so I'll turn it over should I go out of order or would you like to go in order perhaps commissioners get her it's your you're transferring out oh she went she may we'll come back to commissioner bryan certainly madam chair I congratulate all of the applicants who were just awarded licenses today bringing what I know is for many much anticipated activity and revenue stream into the commonwealth I do also more importantly want to thank the staff in addition to fellow commissioners but the the yeoman's work that went into this to to prep us and then be there for us in meetings and make sure that this kept moving and we're not quite done we do have meetings to finish the regs to make sure this all you know launches on the 31st and thereafter but my hat is off to everyone on this staff who I think really did an incredible amount of work with the assistance of rsm and gli and then the the other individual investigators who were brought in to help i e b in this process and I know it's not over there's a long process ahead you know gli i e b etc has a lot of work ahead of them as to the licensees but this is sort of the beginning of the next phase so I congratulate everyone and thank you to all the staff commissioner hill thank you madam chair I too want to congratulate all those applicants who receive the temporary licenses today and although this is a day to celebrate an industry starting up here in massachusetts and I want to congratulate you I want to wish you all great luck but I too want to recognize the staff of the mgc there was a lot of work that went into a very aggressive deadline that we set up as a commission and I know how hard all of you have worked and it has been one or two people it's been the entirety of the entire mass gaming commission in the different departments that you've had to do the work in I want you to know how much we appreciate it as a commission and when I get to see you personally I will shake each and every one of your hands and thank you personally but obviously to the applicants congratulations but more importantly right now for the staff in all the hard work that went in and I do want to recognize my fellow commissioners the questions that were asked during the application process were great great questions ones that I didn't necessarily think of beforehand and the fact that we talk so much about suitability for example from my good friend commissioner O'Brien was invaluable the questions that you asked to get us through this process and to commissioner Maynard and commissioner Skinner the questions that you asked on diversity were so important to the goal of this commission and madam chair you have done yeoman's work to get us through the last few weeks and we all appreciate the hard work and time that you have put in as well so to everybody it's a great day congratulations to our applicants thank you to our staff to my fellow commissioners job well done thank you commissioner Maynard thank you madam chair I'm bullish on these applicants ability to provide the Commonwealth a safe forum to engage in this new and exciting forum of entertainment I have faith that this will bring betters back from other jurisdictions and more importantly out of the illegal market and into the legal market I want to thank the commission staff all of them and Karen Wells has went out of her way to make sure that we met every goal that we have set thus far I want to thank Loretta and the IEB for prepping us to this far to where we are and to all the work I know they're going to have to do over the years to to get this finalized finally madam chair your leadership has been invaluable and I thank you for the way that you've conducted this process that's all I have thanks commissioner and I think perhaps we lost commissioners get up but she'll have an opportunity to I am here madam chair if you don't hear me I'm here okay now I see you yeah okay great now for the commissioner can you add in please I can and I'm multi-tasking so I'll keep it short and sweet I do want to extend my congratulations to the applicant here's to a successful launch come March it was an interesting process I appreciate the participation by all of you and your robust cooperation and getting to this to this point today where we were able to vote in the affirmative to issue all six of the licenses now I want to turn to the team your work hats off to you you performed the lion's share of the work I didn't think we could do it in the aggressive timeline that was put forth then I you know I think you know I was very vocal about that but that had nothing to do with my impression of any of you or your ability to get the work done I thought it was you know just a lot and I worried about you know our collective mental and physical health but you have shined throughout this process I can't say that I'm surprised I am you know looking forward to celebrating with each and every one of you again the commissioners could not have gotten to this point without your dedication and commitment to the work that you do every single day and a sincere thank you for hanging in there with us and supporting us in the way that you have over these past several several weeks and there's more to come as commissioner Hill said we're not done yet but we know now that you are ready willing and able to plow forward I also want to add my thanks finally to my fellow commissioners I think this was a very engaging process I think the level of respect and consideration granted to each one of the commissioners is to be commended and I appreciate and appreciate each of your contributions and I'm pleased to be serving on this body with each of you thanks commissioner try carefully I would there was such a long pause so I was like did I say all that and it didn't get captured so you look back captured beautifully so thank you so much and and I'll close but I you know I kind of saved my thoughts for our team I acknowledged in the morning at our agenda setting that you know the team has gotten great folks are watching the hard work and they're impressed and you know the commissioners said no one is surprised but you've all made lots of personal sacrifices and that's what you know that's really at the heart of being a public servant and for that you should be especially proud I know that you are all generous colleagues to each other and you support each other and in this instance in the last you know since August 1st um you've been navigating as a cohesive team and that's allowed us as a body to be able to make today's decisions so um Karen thank you Karen has been available and I know sometimes she just can't believe I'm calling on a Sunday afternoon for a Saturday morning but she answers those calls readily uh Todd you have been as a perp counselor and have given us great guidance throughout this process and you too and your entire team have been just that hard hard work and it's been demanding A&K has been there but it starts right here in house so thank you the IEB that licensing team boy they really demonstrated that ability to get the job done immediately and to do it as Samantha points out with um such professionalism and care and uh the reports that we have had in front of us have given us that exact level of confidence about the integrity of um of this new industry that we needed at this juncture but we know there's a lot of work and I know that GEU will be there with you um Director Lilios and your team to get through the the deep review that that these this process requires so Director Lilios thank you and to all the rest of the team you know the work is continuing that all is directed at sports weight training but we've got a real active division of research and responsible gaming that's going on you know behind the scenes we've got our community mitigation work that's going on all along without a hiccup um I'm not going to mention everyone's work it is all integrated finance to HR to our comms team I want to thank finally Christa Bocheman who has really helped us every step of the way and she he beats me out in terms of being the calls at various times of the day or the text just to this morning she woke up first thing was oh gosh got to remember the dude's round table agenda so her mind has been on this process every second and for that we are very appreciative to all of you to the gaming unit from Bruce to his entire team just thank you thank you thank you and I wish that I could say you know party can begin but as we all acknowledge there's still a lot of hard work but today was a big milestone and for that all right at this juncture is there any other business I'm not thanking Joe did you just see he just put up um you know what and thank you for reminding me you know I I acknowledge on the individual basis how much GLI RSM IEB have have met to us all along the way we've relied on your guidance you know this is a problem with thinking because you always wear your who you're forgetting I wasn't doing that I was doing that as a celebrate emoji for everyone here so the sentiment's the same from the GLI side and we thank you all for allowing us there's still a lot of work to do and uh but uh I am actually I'm quite proud of what's what's happened here and it's been an amazing experience so thank you very much thank you and thank you Joe and thank you to Dave and Kevin and all of GLI and again we really did we continue to rely on your expertise and thank you so much okay any other business and did you all see that how to do that as close to a party as we can get guys it's just on the all right looking forward where we can all be in person at the right time Karen and again to Executive Director Wells thank you for meeting your team so well thank you to your entire team for all of its excellent excellent we have a motion move to adjourn second okay going to mix it up Commissioner Maynard aye Commissioner Skinner he's trying to catch you bye hi I hope there are guard reels and Commissioner O'Brien aye and I vote yes five zero everyone thank you so much see you tomorrow first thing in the morning 10 o'clock 11 oh 11 o'clock start regulations thank you everyone