Pages Navigation Menu

NGC Seeks Answers Regarding Online Gambling Regulations

shutterstock_106752035As the online poker saga in the US continues with rules and regulations still being thrashed out, the Nevada Gaming Commission are ultimately the ones who will be responsible for fine lining the rules.

As the NGC is well aware of its almost certain role in the last few steps to determine exactly how online poker services will be offered to other states, there has been a Request for Comment filed by the organisation. The committee seeks feedback from interested states, businesses and the public, all of who may call upon the state of Nevada’s newly given responsibility to provide online poker services to other states, so these state’s citizens can be reinstated with the right to gamble online if they so choose.

The RFC was filed following a rushed deal by Nevada state politicians with the government that would allow Nevada authorities to become one of three agreed upon states to provide the US with online poker services. However, due to the states politicians’ speedy processes in this matter, the NGC have been left slightly on the back foot with no firm details on actually how the new online services are to be regulated or how contract terms and conditions will be decided fairly to satisfy all those affected.

Sally P. Elloyan, who currently holds the executive secretary position in the NGC, has posted the RFC details on the NGC website in the hope to get a better idea of how a fair and accurate online gambling market can be set-up not just for the state of Nevada, but also for the businesses who wish to be involved in the process and most importantly she seeks public opinion on the matter, as it is the public that are the ultimate customers/receivers of the soon to be in action service.

1. What topics should the board and commission consider putting in regulation relating to an interstate agreement on interactive gaming?

2. Should revenue sharing between signatory states to a compact be based on the location of where the wager originated? Why or why not? Please be specific and cite any relevant legal support.

3. Should revenue sharing between signatory states to a compact be based on the location of the licensed interactive host? Why or why not? Please be specific and cite any relevant legal support.

4. Should the regulatory body of the signatory state where the wager originated have control over player disputes related to said players? Why or why not? Please be specific and cite any relevant legal support.

5. Please provide any other information not requested above that is relevant to regulations for interstate agreements on interactive gaming. Regulatory language will be drafted after comments are submitted and will be considered at a regulatory workshop yet to be scheduled.

The website has stated that it is open to comments in regards to these questions until the 9th April 2013.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− one = 1

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>