Good morning, and thank you for coming to this KubeCon EU 2021 keynote, Cloud Native and WebAssembly, Better Together. In today's keynote, we're going to show the story of the rise of WebAssembly. We're going to give you a high-level overview of what WebAssembly is all about, and why you should care, and how WebAssembly and Cloud Native are better together. I'm Liam Randall, and I'm the co-founder of an open-source framework for microservices called WasmCloud. My co-speaker Ralph is the principal program manager for Azure Core. Together, we collaborate on a number of Cloud Native projects leveraging WebAssembly. Today, Ralph and I are going to take a few minutes to explain why Cloud Native and WebAssembly are simply just better together. For the uninitiated WebAssembly abbreviated WASM or WASM, is on the path to becoming as important to the enterprise and as ubiquitous as the container. Whether you realize it or not, you're likely already adopting WebAssembly in your environment today. The security, portability, and embedability has developers throughout the Cloud Native ecosystem adopting both its power and potential. We'll take you there, but let us first set the stage. Over the last 30 years, each wave of innovation has built upon and further scaled the previous generation's wave of technology. We can observe that each new epic of technology has been dominated by two dimensions. The first dimension is its format. The format is how we store our applications, the what we deliver, what we run, and the what we move around. The second critical dimension is the technology we use to orchestrate those formats to create, delete, scale, and connect them together. With the format and dimension in mind, let me explain the parts of the picture in green are the responsibility of the application builder, and the parts of the picture that are in blue are the responsibility of the orchestration layer. On the left, the standalone PC started with an image and was manually orchestrated by the data center. This gave way to the virtual machine and the virtual machine was orchestrated by the public cloud. And we've segmented our formats even further with the rise of containers and portable, pluggable, multi-cloud orchestration with Kubernetes. Now let's observe a few general trends and patterns. First, each epic is solved for the emerging challenges of the waves that came before it. Second, in each progressive wave, we increased the coupling of applications from their specific underlying environments. The format itself embeds fewer assumptions than the format that came before it. Think back to the data center computers, for example. Specific applications were tuned for specific hardware on which they resided with specific drivers. Third, a further theme emerges. The underlying layers become increasingly portable through plugability and extendability. The virtual machine, for example, freezes from a specific size and type of computer. And Kubernetes freezes from a specific size and vendor of cloud. Fourth, each wave continues to freeze further from the assumptions built into the previous generation. The variable container lets developers ship and reproduce environments quickly. Fifth, things today are hardly perfect and there are abundant assumptions baked into the way we design, develop, and deploy software, even with containers. For example, we're all now living through the painful upheaval in CPU architectures with x86 and ARM in the data center. So as we consider what may be next, let us then project these trends forward into the next wave. So the fourth great epic of technology will continue a trend of further decoupling from underlying layers, portability and extendability through plugability and freedom from some of today's assumptions. So what's next? The jobs to be done of the previous epic shaped the next epic's design. The need for horizontally unscable compute led to the rise of the public cloud. The need for shippable environments led to the creation of the container. In the design of everyday things, we would recognize that we can use the clues in our environment to identify what we need next. A well-designed product, something that has real fit would have these intentions, these intuitive cues that make it obvious how to use it. And the solution to today's broad challenges will be less of a wow experience and feel more like a boring, of course. So here we are 15 years into the launch of the public cloud, eight years since the dawning of Docker and seven years since the launch of Kubernetes. Now the Linux Foundation Edge has helpfully provided us with this wonderful continuum for what the coming world looks like. And at first glance, it feels pretty straightforward. The next epic of technology, therefore, may account for the world from big to small, from centralized to distributed. Now this broad summary can hardly show everything. Themes of infrastructure are bundled. On the far right, we have not a cloud, we have multi-cloud. And in the middle, we have not just an edge, but a multi-edge. And at the user, we have not just browsers, but multi-browsers. And it is clear that the world of tomorrow accelerates an existing challenge, the incredible diversity in CPU architectures. Now let us take this world view and envision the great epics of technology laid over it. If we consider the cloud-native landscape as we understand it today, we have so many great fits. Kubernetes on the edge and increasingly on the edges. Containers riding along with them into parts of the consumer edge. We have service meshes like Envoy. We have policy engines like OPA and dozens of other related projects. So where in this view do we see those three tenants emerging? Where is the progressive decoupling? Where is the plugability? Where is the freedom from the broad assumptions that we embrace in today's models? As we've accumulated these design criteria, where might this happen in the cloud, at the edge? It is in fact, not just one place. WebAssembly builds upon the entire ecosystem and not just on the ecosystem. WebAssembly is inside the ecosystem and in some places, it is the ecosystem. It is both compatible with and freeing from the assumptions of the previous generation. It transcends our landscape and WebAssembly is poised to fit everywhere. Now, if you haven't heard of WebAssembly, let me start with what may seem to be an all too familiar promise. WebAssembly was begun as a portable Polygot compilation target for the web. An idea like Java, Silverlight, or Flash that promises right once and run everywhere execution. And wasm difference differs. Both open source and free, it's a community-driven W3C standard created in close collaboration with browser engine vendors and shipping in all major browsers since 2017. WebAssembly is a compilation target and not a programming language. This is a technology that enables developers and organizations to choose their languages, their libraries, and to deliver them with a consistent set of tenants. And like many great technologies designed for the web before it, such as JavaScript, WebAssembly too has found home outside the browser, on the server, on applications, on the devices and even embedded in other platforms themselves. And while the future of WebAssembly is simply dazzling, today it already brings much to the table. It's efficient and fast. It runs at near native speed. It's safe and secure, not just sandboxed, but it operates in a deny-by-default mode. It's open and debuggable. It's polyglot. Choose your own language. It's portable from servers to browsers to embedded. So today, we already find WebAssembly runs in, runs on, and runs around cloud native, as applications executing on our big servers, as pluggable engines embedded within our applications, as platforms in their own right on the edge. It's inside our browsers, and yes, it's even inside the IoT. WebAssembly is already showing up in our applications. It's running in and around the cloud native ecosystem. Certainly, most of us use WebAssembly on a regular basis whether we realize it or not. It's speed and efficiency is part of the magic behind both Google Earth and Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the next crop of open-source projects are already building with WebAssembly. WasmCloud, for example, a distributed application runtime for the enterprise, and Kubewarden, a flexible and powerful admission controller for Kubernetes, both leverage Wasm. And these are just two of the hundreds of cloud native applications building on WebAssembly today. And WebAssembly is being incorporated inside of existing CNCF projects. As an embedded engine, WebAssembly's key value proposition around speed, efficient size, and security make it an attractive choice as an embedded engine where we might execute code from third parties. Where once you may have turned to Lua or JavaScript, we are now starting to find Wasm. For example, both OPA and Envoy both rely on Wasm at their pluggable cores. And as a platform, WebAssembly is not only one of the core technologies leveraged by companies like Shopify and Fastly, but it's also showing up with the Kubernetes Rust Kubelet or Crustlet as a native payload. And so it is as an application, as an embedded engine, as a platform, and the browser, or on the edge, a new epoch of technology has emerged that decouples us further from the limitations of our previous world view. WebAssembly's security, portability, and decoupling of concerns transcend and are part of our cloud-native landscape. And both cloud-native and WebAssembly are better together. Thanks, Liam. As you just heard Liam outline, WebAssembly is perhaps surprisingly already here. You may not have noticed it in Envoy or Istio or Glue in KubeBorden or Crustlet, but it could already be running in your Kubernetes clusters. You may not know that Flight Simulator or Shopify uses it, but that it's the way Fastly does their compute at the edge. Already cloud-native and like any good technology, it's boring because it works. It's the coming future that might add a little spice to the boredom. Have a seat while we talk about what's coming for a moment. Do a demo and tell you how you can get involved. WebAssembly is already sandboxed by default. The first step to untrusted code. But we want to take more steps in that direction. In Container Land, we continue to apply all the best pod identity practices. We use our back. We prevent privileged containers, among other things. And these best practices are essentially continuing to find the holes and plug them. WebAssembly is taking the next steps too. And it's happening right now. So if you're interested, you can help out upstream or start experimenting either with some of the bytecode Alliance projects or other run times and application models that are using WebAssembly. For the past couple of years, the members of the bytecode Alliance have been collaborating on what they have been calling the Nano process model, something that brings portability and composability to the security and speed of local processes, but with much lower overhead so that they can create a radical increase in agility. The objective is secured shareability. This is the genius of open source and containers without sacrificing performance or a native developer experience. If containers are the big gears in cloud native, WebAssembly components like this are like smaller gears in between the larger ones so that the entire mechanism can do more work. Let's click through all of this quickly. First, sandbox by default means the module has no access to anything. Default no, not default yes. If a runtime wants to offer a get random function, it offers that function to the module. The module does not otherwise have access. This default stance is a great foundation. The isolated memory model means that modules get their own memory. They have no access to anyone else's memory and this is great. Third, interface types bring two main features. First, they ensure that complex types can be passed into and received out of modules and that the languages will do this work for you, not a complex manual chain of tools. Second, they mean that this passing can be highly optimized and does not involve complex marshalling or serialization costs that occur in other inter-process communication environments. It's very fast, but still enables the typing and cross-language functionality that a cloud-native world needs. Now, some things are done. We can mostly pass complex types in and out. That's really great. But there are some things that are still in flight, like handles to files and buffers. These will likely appear very soon and I absolutely can't wait. Because there are some things that you want to do with files and networks. This is part of the WebAssembly system interface work, which is commonly called WASI. Now, WASI does several things, including enabling languages to target a single binary specification, giving developers their current native dev iteration experience and ensuring that they just create their code the way they do now. And securing memory internally and ensuring that modules can export and import things is great, but code also does things against shared resources like files and networks. And like processes and operating systems, WASI ensures that calls have a fine-grain set of permissions or capabilities that they must have in order to use those resources. It becomes possible to deny to code any outbound network permission, for example, and do it with the application rather than modifying the entire platform. Let's go to a demo. First, let's establish the environment as this is a deliberately simple example to ensure what is happening is clear. You'll note that there are two Crestlet agent nodes here, one with WASM time using the current WASI features, which we had used several hours ago, and one WASM cloud node so that you can see that with Crestlet, you can run any WebAssembly runtime for which there is a provider. Let's have a quick look at the YAML for our WebAssembly. If we've done things well, it should be immediately understandable. Note two important things. First, the image is a WebAssembly module stored in Azure Container Registry. A project called WASM to OCI makes this possible, and it works for pretty much any OCI registry. But for Kubernetes users, this is irrelevant, as it's just the image you want to run. Second, the node selector is asking for a WASM cloud node, not Linux or Windows or anything else. Operations just got simpler. No multi-arch images, OS-based images, it's always the same WebAssembly binary. Even if you change the WASM runtime, let's start a simple file server just to watch it work. Cue control apply, and we ensure the pod is running, and then curl to the service to create a new file on the server. And because we're running locally, we can list the directory and see the file. Now let's go and print it out. First locally, and then by curling the file and finally delete it. This is a simple application, but the experience is the same whether it's simple or very complex. Now that application was a simple WASM cloud file server hosted on a Crustlet node running in Kubernetes. Not only were no OCI containers involved, we didn't even touch the advanced messaging and capabilities-based security of WASM cloud. Nonetheless, it should be clear that whether you're working inside Kubernetes or building applications that communicate with it, WebAssembly is likely to be a part of your cloud-needed future. So what can you do? First, get involved. The bytecode alliance is a great place to join the WebAssembly community in one step, but there are user groups and specific audiences like the Linux Foundation Edge as well. Second, pick a runtime and compile the WebAssembly. Tons of languages compile the WASM and the emerging WASI component approach. Give one of them a try and when new ones add WASI support, try those as well and provide feedback or submit a PR. Third, run WASM in your environment. Give it a try or embed WASM in your application or platform by using the language bindings for your favorite runtime. As we continue uncoupling our business logic from our text acts and move closer and closer to zero trust code, WebAssembly stands out as an important open source addition to Kubernetes. And as the WebAssembly component features begin to emerge, its ability to run on multiple architectures and operating systems and in constrained environments means that you can start thinking how you're gonna use it right now. Only you really know how to fill the WebAssembly landscape posted. Thank you very much for watching.


All set. Thanks. Good morning. This is the convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We're holding this meeting virtually, so I will do my roll 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. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. Today is November 7th, and we're having a meeting that really is about one subject matter. It's public meeting number 486, and it concerns in general, the Penn Entertainment ESPN deal. We have received some information, which is being right now gained confidential under our rules and regulations. Want to get started with legal and IEB, who will introduce its teams that are involved, as well as I believe it's Mr. Rogers, who will be presenting the Penn Entertainment. Good morning, Councilor. All right, so I guess I'll turn to Todd and Heather. Good morning. Good morning, Chair. Thank you, and good morning, Chair and Commissioners. As the Chair stated, we are here to discuss the Penn Entertainment ESPN marketing deal, and we have several folks here today to speak with the Commission and to build any questions. Kara O'Brien, the Chief of Licensing, is here to build questions with respect to the licensing piece. We also have Enforcement Council, Zach Mercer, who will be available for questions, as well as, and I can defer to Todd to introduce the legal team as well. But I would note that just by way of background, the Commission had a meeting on October 19th, wherein there was discussion about this deal that we're discussing today, and the Commission had several questions for Penn. Penn has since submitted a document in response to those questions, and here today are several representatives from Penn, including Mr. Chris Rogers, who is the Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. So with our understanding that he will speak to that letter and be able to fill questions from the Commission. And with that, I will turn it over to Todd to introduce himself as a legal team as well. Well, thanks, Heather. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners and all. Yeah, so we're joined here, of course, by our Deputy General Counsel, Kayla Monaghan. She and I are happy to provide any legal guidance that would be useful, but I think Director Hall did a really nice job kind of teeing it up. So we're ready to proceed, Heather, at this point. Thanks, Todd. With that, I would turn it over to Chris Rogers. Great, thank you. I think we're actually gonna start with Erin Chamberlain, who you know. I know. Hi. Thank you, Chris. Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff.  And we're here, as you mentioned, to discuss the Penn ESPN Strategic Marketing Alliance and Penn Interactive's rebranding of the existing online sports wagering product from Barstool Sports Book to ESPN Vet, which as we have shared with the Commission previously and was publicly announced last week, is scheduled to occur in all 17 of our UFJs online sports wagering jurisdictions on November the 14th, 2023, pending final approvals. As you guys have seen joining me today from Penn Entertainment is Chris Rogers, our Executive Vice President, Chief Strategy Officer. We also have Sam Hagerty, Deputy Chief Compliance Officer and Regulatory Affairs Council, and Adam Cape, our Senior Director of Compliance at Penn Interactive. I just wanted to say thank you to each of you, as well as the Commission staff, of course, for all of your efforts and collaboration over the past year. We recognize the effort put forth by all of you to successfully lead the licensing, regulating and launching a multiple-regional and mobile sports wagering operations in such a truncated timeline. I'm gonna turn it over now to Chris for a brief overview and some commentary. And then, of course, we're always happy to answer any questions that may happen, okay? Great, thank you, Erin. And good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff. I wanna echo Erin's comments and extend our appreciation to the Commission and the staff for all your collaboration regarding our divestment of Arsenal Sports and our Strategic Marketing Alliance with ESPN. We understand the purpose of this meeting is threefold to address any outstanding questions regarding Penn-ESPN Strategic Marketing Alliance, whether there have been any changes to PSI or PPC suitability, and whether Penn's divestiture of Arsenal Sports requires any amendment to the PSI or PPC sports wagering licenses. Before I address each of these items, as Erin mentioned, Penn is planning to simultaneously rebrand our online sports wagering platform in all 17 of our licensed jurisdictions in the United States from Barstool Sportsbook to ESPN Bet on November 14th. This Commission has previously asked how other gaming regulators are treating our divestiture of Barstool and Strategic Marketing Alliance with ESPN. As discussed in our October 31st, 2023 submission, we are not aware of any meaningful regulatory impediments to effectuating the rebrand in our other 16 jurisdictions and no concerns have been raised by any jurisdiction regarding the suitability of Penn or ESPN. We believe we have complied with all Massachusetts gaming laws and regulations to similarly allow the rebranding to occur in the Commonwealth on the 14th, pending Wednesday's review of our House rules. As you know, we began discussions with the Commission and staff immediately prior to our August 8th public announcement of the deal. The following day, we provided the Commission with our SEC filings related to our new marketing affiliation. And on August 15th, our Chief Compliance Officer, Chris Soriano, met with Commission staff to discuss these topics. On September 19th, Mr. Soriano provided supplemental documentation related to our ESPN Strategic Marketing Alliance and met again with staff three days later. Most recently, Mr. Soriano and Adam Cates presented to the Commission on October 2nd, where they spoke in depth on the ESPN Strategic Marketing Alliance and supplemented that presentation with additional information and a letter sent on August 31st. Finally, following our quarterly earnings release last week, we shared additional details about the ESPN partnership that were publicly discussed during that presentation. If there are no objections, I think it would be helpful at this time to walk through the various points that we made in our October 31st submission. Summarizing the most relevant provisions of the Sportsbook Agreement, as a whole, the Sportsbook Agreement governs the terms of the relationship of the operation of ESPN-BET. Section three of the Sportsbook Agreement provides that Barstool Sportsbook shall be rebranded as ESPN-BET in all available platforms offered by PEN. Importantly, Section five of the Sportsbook Agreement states that PEN shall oversee and be directly responsible for the Sportsbook product development, distribution, operations, and promotions. In other words, PEN remains the responsible party for the conduct of licensed gaming operations. ESPN is a marketing partner end of the Sportsbook Agreement. To be clear, therefore, only PEN team members have control and operational responsibility over the actual conduct of gaming. I also want to make it clear that while this arrangement has some similarities to our previous arrangement with Barstool Sports, there is a key distinction. PEN was previously the owner of Barstool Sports, whereas ESPN is a completely separate entity owned by the Walt Disney Company. ESPN also provides what are defined in the Sportsbook Agreement as ESPN marketing services. The marketing services include odds attribution to ESPN-BET on ESPN programming where applicable, editorial integrations, access to mutually agreed ESPN talent, traditional media integrations such as traditional television commercials, and social media. In addition, ESPN's customer relationship management teams will work to integrate Sportsbook offers within ESPN's customer campaigns. These integrations will be subject to the comprehensive guardrails and will also include appropriate procedures to suppress marketing to customers who are excluded for any reason, including voluntarily self-exclusion. With regards to content guidelines, recognizing the importance of regulatory compliance, PEN and ESPN have developed a set of guidelines to be followed when promoting ESPN-BET on media channels, including social media. The key points of the content guardrails are as follows. All advertising and promotions must contain appropriate responsible gaming messaging as required by applicable state laws and regulations. Advertising may not target individuals under 21, may not include individuals who are or appear to be under 21, and cannot be represented on a medium unless 73.6% of the audience is expected to be over 21, which is 75% in Massachusetts. Content may not include persons under 21 promoting or commenting on any betting activity. Content may not make reference to wagers being offered by illegal sports wagering operators. Content may not glorify excessive or reckless wagering or downplay the risks of losing money. Content must not guarantee success. Discuss wagering as a way to make personal or financial success or imply greater chances of winning versus other operators. Content may not use terminology such as risk-free, free or can't lose. Content may not include crass or lewd comments, excessively intoxicated persons or illicit substances. With regard to presence on college campuses, PEN and ESPN both recognize the importance of compliance with the commission's regulations and the significance of ensuring that any activity that takes place involving a college campus receives a heightened level of attention and control, primarily with respect to age appropriate and responsible gaming measures. For that reason, in collaboration with PEN, ESPN has adopted a policy regarding the promotion of ESPN bet on college campuses. This policy includes is not limited to ESPN programming that originates on a college campus. The following activities are prohibited by the policy. The promotion advertising or solicitation of or for ESPN bet by the announcers on the college game day set or any other programming originating from the college campus to the in-person audience is prohibited. No ESPN bet signage may be physically present on site during programming originating from a college campus. No signups for ESPN bet may be solicited while physically present on the college campus. These prohibitions will apply even if the broadcast is off campus, but an in-person audience of college students is still expected. For example, a college sporting events that takes place on an off campus venue, such as a professional sports stadium. Any promotion of ESPN bet conducted during the broadcast originating from a college campus will not be visible to the audience. For example, a promotion for ESPN bet may be filmed offsite and added to the programming so that it would be seen only by the television audience but not by the live audience or would be presented in other manners also not visible to any live audience on a college campus. As a result, ESPN bet will not be promoted on a college campus even if the programming originates from a campus. This policy comports with the prohibitions of 205CMR 256.054E, which prohibits advertising, marketing, branding, and other promotional materials being published, aired, displays, disseminated, or distributed on any college or university campus unless certain exceptions apply. With respect to wagering guidelines, no employee may place a wager at any facility or through any mobile application or digital platform owned or operated by their employer. This prohibition will continue to apply to pen employees. Because ESPN is not an operator, its employee's employer does not own or operate any platform and therefore ESPN employees are not prohibited from wagering. Nevertheless, ESPN is developing a comprehensive set of employee guidelines to include on-air talent that will ensure that ESPN maintains its high standards of journalistic integrity and that insiders remain independent from ESPN bet. There will be no connection between ESPN insiders, reporters, or the news desk with anyone who handles risk or trading for pen. ESPN will continue to report on news as it always has while PEM will, separately and independently manage the sportsbook. PEM will not have access to ESPN's news production software. We are incredibly excited to launch ESPN bet next week and are confident that our new marketing collaboration with this well-established and trusted brand will result in meaningful economic impact to the Commonwealth. Further, as an entity that has already licensed in Massachusetts, ESPN is a known quantity that is committed to the highest standards of compliance and responsible gaming. Together, we are poised to deliver on a compelling sports wagering product for our customers and make our regulators proud, both here in the Commonwealth and across the nation. Since our August 8th announcement, we believe we have provided the commission with all requested information regarding our divestiture of our sole sports, strategic marketing alliance with ESPN and the rebrand of our offerings from the Barstool Sportsbook brand to ESPN bet. Regarding pen suitability, earlier this year, the commission determined that the standard to be applied in connection with the preliminary suitability is whether substantial evidence exists to support a finding that the applicant is preliminarily suitable and the commission still found with respect to both PPC and PSI under our prior branding arrangements with Barstool Sports. We do not believe there is any basis to find that our disassociation with Barstool in favor of our new relationship with ESPN would diminish or detract from the commission's previous finding of suitability. Finally, in terms of license conditions and consistent with the commission's action on other sports wagering licenses, we do not believe there's any basis for new conditions. And we are comfortable deferring to the commission staff on whether removal of the Barstool conditions on our licenses is required now or at a later date. Thank you again for your diligence and collaboration throughout our rebrand. I know we have provided the commission with a significant amount of information over the last three months. And with that, I'm happy to answer any additional questions you may have. Madam Chair. Commissioner Hill, I just wanna check in with Heather. Are we all set for the commissioners to ask questions at this point? Yes, thank you, Chair. And certainly we're available for questions as well. Okay, go right ahead, Commissioner Hill. So can you clarify for me the college game day advertising during the show? So what I'm watching on TV is usually watched by younger people, certainly college-aged students. And when I hear that everything will be off-site, when you're there physically, I think I heard you say during commercials, I may see something to do with betting during the show. Did I hear that right or wrong? I think that you characterize that the right way. So the prohibition around college campuses is really the promotion of the students in attendance. And that's the focus of those prohibitions. I think today there's plenty of sports betting advertisements during games. College football is a important sport for sports wagering and there's a lot of promotion around it. So our policies are focused on making sure that the students themselves are not targeted by the promotion and that any promotion of the PMBET is to an audience that meets the standards of 75% or more over the age of 21. And can you just, and this is just me being real technical, explain to me what the word glorify means, because I think it could be looked upon as a few things. As far as, did I use the word glorify? Yes, and let me, I can certainly find it if you give me a second. I think the reference is, for us responsible gaming is important to talk about sports betting as a form of entertainment, but it's not a way to make money, right? And so what we want to avoid in any of our responsible gaming messaging is trying to portray sports wagering as being something that you can't lose, you can do it as a way of making money. I believe, Caitlin, do we use the term glorify in our regulation? I don't remember the term being used in the regulation, but I could be wrong. I think that's actually from the AGA regulation. That's right, yeah. Okay, for now, Madam Chair, that's all the questions I have. Commissioner O'Vallie? Hi. Go on. Yeah, oh, sorry. Do you think you want to keep going, Commissioner O'Vallie? No, go ahead. Okay, so the questions that I have really focused on, you know, when you had your branding relationship in the first instance, you took a well-known freestanding media corporation and then tethered yourself to that brand. So now you're taking a freestanding, probably the most well-known sports broadcaster and tethering your betting to that brand. So this ESPN bet will be a new entity, but really drawing off what consumers know about ESPN. And so the concern that I have in terms of trying to navigate this is where is the line that protects consumers, complies with our regulations in terms of, you know, there are bright lines of your employees who are gonna be operating ESPN that will not be putting bats on ESPN, that complies with our regulation. There is the other aspect of our regulation that requires that you not be putting forth suggesting recommending anybody betting on a specific bet. And so the couple of things in here that I'd like you to speak more about are, and if you need to go in executive session, put your hand up, let me know. When you talk about the marketing services that they're gonna be providing, you talk about odds attribution to ESPN bet on ESPN programming. That sounds to me like a conflation of the branding that might run into problems with that reg. That's my first question. I have another question too. You say later that you, ESPN's customer relationship management team will work to integrate the sports book offers within the ESPN customer campaigns. So I'm trying to understand where the safeguards, which I know some are in development, but how exactly is this gonna work where consumers are not gonna be conflating ESPN and ESPN bet in terms of the shows, discussion of the odds, recommendations on bets, that sort of thing. I think I'd like a more fulsome conversation on that. So I think, look, some of your questions I think are broader as interest or a relationship with ESPN and sort of get to just the use of media in general by sports book operators. The way I think about it.  And so to me, this is a little different and a little more pointed in my question than just the broader question of advertising and marketing. And the distinction you're making is the fact that the brand is the same? That you have, you're taking what is already a pre-existing known brand with consumer loyalty, knowledge, affinity for what also happens to be the actual product that's being bet on and then you are putting a brand relationship on that on your app and on your sports betting app. Where I'm concerned about lines being crossed in terms of the ability to, and you speak to this somewhat in your presentation, how do you keep the reporting, the integrity, the impartiality, the compliance ESPN separate from ESPN bet in a way that's clear to the average consumer? Yep. Yeah, look, there's a lot of content around sports betting now in media. And when I think about what ESPN is going to be doing for us, the brand is part of it. And I think the brand to me, it's important from the standpoint of you piggyback on the trust and credibility of ESPN as a provider. And I think that is certainly enhancement from what we've seen in the market. As far as the distinction, they're currently today for ESPN, they're giving odds attribution to Caesar's sports book. So when they talk about odds, they say odds brought to you about Caesar's. They currently do integrations with both Caesar's and DraftKings. They've worked with other sports book partners. I think the consumer is able to differentiate the difference between editorial and sports book. There are some examples of this in the UK, the most prominent example of SkyBet, which is piggybacks off the SkyBrand. We have this even in Ontario in our own portfolio with the score and the score bet. And the consumer, even though the two are linked, they build the media and the betting, the consumer understands when they're interacting with the betting entity as opposed to the media. So that's the question that I wanna know is what is it that's gonna happen to make sure people do know that? Because as this is introduced since post-papse, you have more people stepping in. The affinity, the knowledge of ESPN far predates that. So that relationship of integrating the offers with the customer campaigns. And again, I may be talking about a error that you don't wanna go into publicly, in which case let me know if this needs to be an executive session, but that aspect of integrating SportsBet into ESPN in a way that doesn't blur those lines and continues to make it clear to the consumer that if they're talking about the chances of something where someone's injuries or someone's past and performance and how that might play in, how they're gonna know that there's a distinction there. Yeah, look, I think the concern to me would be really having the insiders, the newsbreakers that are associated with the operator of the Sportsbook. And I think we've seen a couple of examples. Thando had an arrangement with the newsbreaker and there was a perception that because the newsbreaker had access to information, the people who wagered on the SportsBetting platform were being taken advantage of because the Sportsbook did have that information. So that's something that ESPN is very focused on and we've had a lot of conversations with them. Their policy I think is going to be probably overly conservative in that regard to make sure that the Sportsbook is completely separate, not just from ESPN, which it is, I mean, they're a marketing partner, but even within ESPN, there's separate heightened restrictions on the newsbreakers and those that have access to that key information. And we're happy to provide you the details of that policy, more information. I think ESPN said that they're gonna be finalizing that this week, so we're happy to submit that. Okay, because you comment that it's sort of developing. So it's a work in progress. So I would like to get more detail on that as one commissioner. Yeah, the key tenants are developed. I just don't have the exact language in front of me, but we're happy to provide that. But that'd be something that I yield to other commissioners at this point to jump in. Thank you, Mr. Brain. Chris, are those tenants something that somebody could help you get this morning? Or are they in development? Commissioner Bryant, I think this, I don't wanna put you on the spot, just something to think about. Can I say, yeah, go right ahead. Oh, sorry, I didn't know if that was a question, sorry. Yeah, I just wanted to make it clear that the guidelines are meant to ensure the ESPN maintains its standards of journalist integrity and the key point there is making sure insiders remain independent from ESPN bed. So there will be no connection between the ESPN insiders, reporters, or the news desk with anyone who handles risk and trading for Penn. And as you pointed out, that's a risk that kind of goes across the industry right now with respect to the various media outlets, correct? Yes, and honestly, I think there's more of a perception than anything. The sports books are completely separate from media partners. And I feel confident saying even that from regards to our competitors. I think the perception is that from a consumer standpoint, if you believe that the sports book has access to inside information that you do not as a consumer, then that causes a concern from a customer standpoint. Can I just ask a follow up question not directly on point with respect to Commissioner O'Brien's questions, but it might help me if you could remind me of the entities that are involved in terms of their various names. I do understand that unlike Barstool, ESPN bed is completely separate. You don't have ownership. And but I guess I'm wondering if you could go through if there are any distinctions in terms of the various ESPN entities. Yes, so from an operator standpoint, the operator and the licensee is PSI from the PEM perspective. And we will be the operator of ESPN bed. ESPN, we have licensed that brand from ESPN but we will be the operator of ESPN bed. And then with regards to ESPN, ESPN Enterprises is the marketing partner that will be providing the marketing services to us. They are owned by ESPN, which is in turn owned by majority owned by the Walt Disney Company. Thanks, that's helpful. It was an outstanding question. Commissioners. So follow up Madam Chair. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner O'Brien, I'm not sure. Yeah, absolutely no. Commissioner Skinner should go, I can go after her. Thank you. Mr. Rogers, in response to Commissioner O'Brien's line of questioning, you indicated that what she was getting at is perhaps broader than Penn's relationship with ESPN. And so what comes to my mind as a potential issue is the issue of control. The commission deem that there was a violation, that there's an issue of non-compliance, I guess on the part of ESPN Enterprises. How will that be handled? What is Penn's role? What is PSI's role? What is the role of ESPN Enterprises in terms of a response to the commission? If you could walk us through what that relationship, how those three entities, what the interplay would be. Yep, so we are the operator, right? And ultimately we are responsible for any actions of the sports book. ESPN is a marketing partner. They are licensed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So there would potentially be implications on their own licensing from their behavior. But ultimately we are responsible for the actions of the sports book and our marketing partners, just like other operators utilize various media outlets as marketing partners. Well, I would imagine it would be that straightforward, I guess, where it is a clear violation of the regulations that the commission has promulgated with respect to the operation of the sports book, marketing, et cetera. But I think what's concerning some of us is that where you're talking about potential wagers, customers who are operating under sort of the name ESPN and potentially being led down a path where, for instance, they're seeing a commercial during a game and they're then led to react to that and place a bet and just there's some combination of activity that the commission might deem a violation of its rules collectively. Is there any concern that Penn would not have the means to address that with ESPN Enterprises? No, no, ESPN is strongly committed to being best in class from a responsible gaming marketing partnership perspective. And so there's no concerns on that. I mean, they've been great operating partners. We understand the responsibility ultimately rests with us, but they have been incredible partners to this process. Okay, thank you. Rachel, remain. So the exclusive relationship that you guys have, you obviously are not gonna be seeking out any other branding or book for PSI as part of this agreement. Is there sort of a similar monopoly that you guys are gonna have in terms of ESPN? And if you don't wanna answer publicly, let me know. No, no, I think this is public. So our arrangement with ESPN is largely exclusive and exclusivity rests around any of these sort of media integrations. And by that, I mean, when they're producing content and there's a promotion of the sports book embedded inside the content that will be exclusive. I don't know if you watched Monday Night Football last night, but in the pre-game, Draft Games had a number of integrations with ESPN. They're actually quite good, I thought. And that's the sort of thing that we'll going forward be exclusive to ESPN bed. There will still be an opportunity potentially for ESPN to have other, to take linear spot ads from other operators. So during commercial breaks, they have the ability if they choose to take other advertising, but the real integrated promotion will be exclusive with us. Total, I make sense from a business perspective on the venture, but in total candor is, so going for my biggest question now is what's still sort of being finalized, right? Those guardrails that you talked about in terms of how they're gonna do it and how it will move forward in terms of when actual implementation just as one commissioner, I can say there's a lot to be excited about this relationship and then there is that part of it that we're gonna have to watch very closely because I'm concerned about the name being the same and being that level of exclusivity and integration which again, from a business perspective, I totally understand, but it is an area that I would love to get when you have it the more detail on the guardrails because to me, that's critical for this. Yep, no, I understood. And I would say that the letter that we submitted October 31st does have the key points of the policy. I'd also like to just say that it's always evolving. It's not, what we try to come up with as a framework, but it's constantly evolving as the industry changes. We have discussions with our regulators as there's new states that might have different regulations. So I don't view the policies being something that's set in stone that here it is. This is something that we're constantly having discussions around what are best practices in space. Right, but you don't, the actual policy isn't done yet. So for me, the letter that you submitted on the 31st was broad strokes. I'm looking for the actual document and the details. Understood. Madam Chair, this question's good. And I join in that. That's also what is missing for me right now. I would like to see those guidelines finalized and just beyond, as Commissioner Bryan said, broad strokes in the letter.  I'm calling you attorney. I don't want to make you a lawyer if you're not one, Chris. I practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That's what I thought. So, Councillor, I am going to follow up on, I'm sure your very intentional reference to the fact that draft kings was involved in the integrated. What is your terminology? Last night, the integrated. Yeah, during the media integrations during money on football. Yeah, integration, right. And I'm sure you mentioned that on purpose because what I'm hearing is that that's going on now with ESPN. Do you, and I suspect maybe some of our other licensees might be taking advantage of those media integrations at ESPN, Mike? Yeah, look, I agree with that, Madam Chair. It's also broader than just ESPN. So points about a deal. I'm just focused on ESPN right now. My point is, is that I'm hearing Commissioner O'Brien being concerned about the exclusivity of your arrangement, but I'm not convinced that the risk are any higher with or lower or different if it's going on now. And so Commissioner O'Brien, if you don't mind, I'm just going to ask, perhaps if we can think about that because if they didn't have this deal, we probably wouldn't be talking about that because I think that arrangement that Joaquin's had last night is within our regulatory framework. But it's not the same, that's the part that gets me, Madam Chair, is the whole point is the branding and the branding is ESPN bet, which to me, when you have that embedded exclusivity within that, that's a different beat than really preexisting free standing company. So these are, is that for the consumer? My concern is conflation of the two entities. That's why I'm speaking for the target. Consumer confusion, more so than the issue around making sure that there's independence from respect to the... I think it's both, but there's a separate impetus in terms of their responsibilities and their journalistic integrity that ESPN has over and above this relationship. That is a concern as well, but I feel like on the other end it's sort of consumer protection, that's the greatest risk from the area that we regulate, in my view. I was just going to point out that there certainly has been a convergence of media and sports betting in the industry. DraftKings, FanDuel, a lot of other operators do have media components. There's a FanDuel TV, DraftKings has a media component. They have their own podcasts and things like that. So I think I'm struggling to figure out the distinction around just utilizing the brand. To me, that would almost imply that there would be a lower standard for operators who are just using marketing affiliates when they're not using the brand. So I'm kind of struggling to understand the distinction for that. So that if I can put a finer point on it, in those circumstances, you have the licensees themselves, 100% control. I mean, so the good and the bad of this relationship is you're gonna set up lines and have set up lines where the news reporting, broadcasting events are controlled by another entity. That's different though, but you're still tethering your brand to them. And so in the examples you gave about FanDuel having their own kind of streaming shows, it's very clear it's still affiliated with the company and they have control over it. Something in the lines of what Commissioner Skinner asked in terms of if something goes awry. So there's a huge plus side to how you're structured. There's also a uniqueness to it in terms of the branding and the separation of control to make sure that you don't have what is perceived as entirely independent broadcast and reporting, dissemination of the sporting events, putting any stamp of approval in terms of specific bedding or information or that sort of thing. I have that in particular in my mind when I raise these concerns. I wanna point out though that you did lead Councilor Rogers with the important reminder to all that Pen, PSI remain in control and remain the responsible for any branding agent. And of course, our regulation starts with that and our advertising that where there is branding that's being used, the operator is responsible for that content. And I know you know that Commissioner O'Brien, but I understand where you're saying there could be a perception issue, I don't think we have a regulation that addresses that turning to Caitlin or Todd. I mean, there are regulations about and the advertising regulations about which entities can encourage or recommend specific bets. And so those were some of the questions that we had going into this meeting over how Pen and ESPN were planning on complying with some of those regulations that aim to sort of keep separation of church and state. Can you go over that one please? Absolutely. So that regulation is 256.044 and it's state, and I'll just read it, it states that no sports wagering operator, sports wagering vendor or third party marketing or advertising entity required to be licensed or registered pursuant to 205CMR 234 nor any employee of any of the foregoing may advise or encourage patrons to place a specific wager of any specific type, kind, subject or amount. The restriction does not prohibit general advertising or promotional activities, which may notify a patron of the need to place a specific type, kind, subject or amount in order for a patron to receive a promotional benefit. So that was the question initially that we've been thinking about was what is the relationship between Pen and ESPN as ESPN being a third party marketing entity and what could their employees say or not say with regard to recommending or encouraging a specific wager? Madam Chair, which was gonna, yes, please, can I just follow up on Caitlin's point? My question was really along these lines. Though the issue that we dealt with in the matter of Pen with Barstool Sports and the Camp Loon's Parley, it didn't encourage a specific bet, but the commission deemed that there was a commissioner skinner. I'm being careful because I'm not sure what, but we didn't matter as a potential issue of non-compliance. Yeah, correct. Let's be careful there. Thank you. I am. Yeah, I'm trying to be. And so it's that kind of issue where, and we had regulations that applied as we reviewed, but where we were, and Mr. Rogers, you made this clarification early on, there's obviously a difference in relationship. Should there be a violation, then we understand that Penn Entertainment is responsible for that. And just I, the heart of my question earlier was really, you know, is it the same, does Penn have the same reach relative to ESPN? Should ESPN find itself, or should Penn find itself in a similar situation that really speaks to the encouragement of a patron placing a specific wager? Do you understand what I'm getting at? Yeah, I think so. I agree with you the ultimately as the operator were responsible for the operations of the sports book. ESPN is a marketing partner like other media companies and has their own license in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So while we do have remedies under our sports book agreement that require compliance by a marketing partner, as you would expect, there's also, they are also licensed with Commonwealth. Mr. Maynard. Madam Chair, thank you. And thank you, Chris for explaining a lot of these issues. It's been very helpful to me to hear it. I read it, but it's, I have to think things through and really hear them. So to that point, I've heard what Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Hill has said, let's take one of my favorite personalities, Pat McAfee. One of my favorites. He does a show that's very, very popular. In fact, it was so popular, ESPN purchased it from a sports wagering company, right? And in this show, he sets up the entire weeks in FL games. He has the lines that are set. He goes through each one and he starts talking about with the panel of who he thinks is gonna win, why he thinks they're gonna win, which players are in, which players are hot. He goes through this whole back and forth and I know that because I watch it, right? And I think really at the heart of Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Skinner's question, that I find myself in agreement with this. Where's the line? I agree with you, Chris, that this is an industry-wide conversation, but I would say ESPN is really big, right? And as I pointed out in our last meeting, I have to hold them to the same standards that I would hold any other group that you were doing business with. Where do those lines get drawn, right? When Pat makes a prediction, when they go through, they start going through the lines. Does your app then have the Pat McAfee Parley, right? And so he's gotten out there. Is he being an analyst? Is he being a, is he marketing? What's he doing in that show, right? Which bucket do we put that into, right? And how do we protect consumers? Because that's our job and our number one priority. How do we protect consumers to make sure that they're not listening like I do at McAfee and then making potentially a bad bet, right? Or potentially the business is making a lot of money on something that that show is saying. So that's where we're coming from. That's, I believe anyways, and that's what I'm trying to sort out is, is how is this working? And I agree with you, we've got to sort this out at a larger level than just this. But this is a really interesting place to highlight it. A, because it's come up before with your company. B, because this is a really, really big company. So as Commissioner O'Brien said, great for business, and the Commonwealth, great for tax revenues, right? All these things. But we got to make sure that we're protecting people and that they're not being enticed to do something wrong. Yeah, no, I understand that. And I think what I'm hearing is just a concern around perceptions that personalities at ESPN are somehow controlling the sports book because of the brand. I think that's sort of some of the concern. For what it's worth, we really didn't have that issue at all with Barstool. I think people understood that Barstool was very separate and distinct from the sports book that Dave and Big Cat weren't dictating lines or stuff like that. Certainly we're open to suggestion on how to make that distinction clear. But I think people will understand that when Pat McAfee is talking about wagers, he's giving his opinion on who's gonna win. He's not speaking for the book and not having any influence over the odds. So one of the things that I was thinking of as I was reading through the letter and your progress in the transition was very often you'll see news programs, right? That are gonna report on something that then crosses into a sphere that maybe is tethered to their parent company. And so you'll get this disclosure that says, look, before we even go into this, on 60 minutes I'm gonna let you know our parent company owns so and so, so that it's out there. So when you're talking to about sort of embedding some of this stuff exclusively within the ESPN broadcasting and the lines and whatever, I started wondering to myself, is that one of these things too that may have to be part of this, that it does just when it's in print like that, make clear to people also. Remember, this is a distinct part of the corporate structure that is ESPN. Well, sorry, Commissioner O'Brien, you made me think of something else, which is, there's gotta be a plethora of data there that can also be used by RG and so forth on is Pat able to move a line? And I'm sure you guys know whether he is or not, right? Once he says something and something happens and that's interesting in solving this larger problem and I will be interested in seeing information like that. So I think for me, it's to bring it back in to close the loop. That's why I'm so interested in the finer details and the finer points of what's in progress right now that you and ESPN are hammering out sort of the finals. I appreciate the reference to it in the 31st submission and the fact that it's a work of progress, but that's why for me it's something that I really want to see. And in terms of further conditioning, that would be a piece that I would want that produced to us for review and discussion once you have it done. Chelter's not here in Gershwin. He raised that one regulation. Do you have concerns? Let's, I am hearing Commissioner O'Brien mentioned something that she's looking for and with respect to condition. So without thinking about conditions right now should, right now, Ten is slated on going live November 14th. Do we have concerns that if they go live on November 14th that somehow they'll be out of compliance with, let's just start with 250.604? And if there aren't concerns with that, we need to probably inform folks here because I'm suspecting they don't think that they'll be out of compliance. So we want to make sure we're on the same page there. I think that's a little bit of a difficult question. I think what we're doing here is flagging some issues that we had questions about. And so Penn, Mr. Soriano submitted the letter. We've had the discussion here today and we're getting more information. And so yeah, I'm just asking about the exact, right now, regardless of the discussion, right now, if they, I'm trying to get to, are they, would they be out of compliance November 14th if we didn't clarify all of this before November 14th came on. And I know that we could continue to ask questions and go back and forth, but I'm just wondering with their proposal as we understand it and we look at our regulation. Is there something that they're doing differently here than that they were doing with Barstool? That's what I'm asking when they actually own Barstool and here ESPN enterprises would be the branding agent. So I can't say right now, based on the information that we have, there would be a per se violation on November 14th. But what I can say is that everyone understands what the regulation is. And then if there were situations that happened, they would be evaluated under the reg as we discussed. But no, I can't say that right now, there'd be a per se violation based on the information I have. Pardon me. I think, Madam Chair, what you're, I think you're getting at is the idea that the term advise or encourage patrons to place certain wagers as used in the regulations. And as Commissioner Maynard just offered up, there are plenty of examples where there are personalities on the network that talk about wagering. And so ultimately it seems to me that it may come down to how the commission ultimately views speaking about wagers on the air. Is that advising and encouraging someone to place a specific wager? I think the sentiment at the moment is that it is not, but that is really the commission's ultimate decision.  So I think that's what we're talking about here. It's not necessarily black and white, just the Katelyn's point. It might depend what the personality actually says. There could be lines drawn between, here's every NFL game, here's the spread, and here's what I, Todd Grossman, think about it. And here's why I would take this team or here's why I would take that team. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm advising or encouraging a particular wager. But it could be viewed that way potentially, depending on the circumstances of the situation, I suppose. So I think just to hone in on, I think Madam Chair, what you're asking about, and it's a really good question. As we sit here right now, I don't think there's any reason to believe that inherently there would be a violation of this regulation unless the commission doesn't necessarily agree with what I just said. Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien? So that's basically why I wanted the one condition on there because I think when you look at the history of Penn and compliance, and I don't know a lot about ESPN's compliance, but I haven't had anything brought to my attention that they don't have a robust compliance program. I don't see anything, as Todd said, that would necessarily make it a mandatory violation of the reg. But I do think that how it actually gets implemented and rolled out answers that question. And what those guardrails are that you guys are finalizing right now, Mr. Rogers, that to me, those are critical pieces of what you just asked, Madam Chair, in terms of that regulation. And if there was something specific that you would like to see in that, what would they be? I know you're thinking conditions, but... So the condition would be that we get a production of the finalized, let me pull up the wording in the letter. Yeah, but I'm wondering if there was something in that agreement that they're looking at their guidelines. Is there something... I know that the document we have that feels high level to you. And I respect that, but I think the intent is clear. Is there something in particular that you would want? For instance, should there be a disclaimer at the beginning of every show or something? I don't know if other jurisdictions have this exact worry, but I just, I'm wondering to be helpful. And again, I don't know if everybody is in agreement, if there's a majority that agrees with you, Commissioner Brown, but I'm just trying to tease it out a little bit. So it's hard for me to answer that question, Madam Chair, until I see what the actual details of the guardrail are. So for me, you look about conditions, it's production of that finalized document, because that may answer the concerns that I have. And at that point, if they're going live with this on the 14th, well, I would assume have some sort of experiential evidence about the roll out, the implementation and the guardrails. But in the high level document, they talk about as part of the agreement. And again, stop me, Mr. Rogers, if you don't want to do this in public. He read it, I think that question. So the marketing services go not only to the odds attributions, but editorial integrations. And we should agree upon ESPN talent, as well as traditional media, TV, commercial, social media. So that editorial integration and the ESPN talent crossing lines, those are the risk points for me. And so to the extent that the guardrails can talk about how that's going to make sure that it doesn't run afoul of that reg that Attorney Grossman and Attorney Monty, I just talked about, that's the most important part for me. And it may be that disclaimers put a level of protection out there that satisfy that, but I don't know on what's in front of me. Madam Chair, I don't know if it's required even. I wouldn't say that it is required at this point, given what I know. Okay, excellent. Very helpful. Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Skinner, how would you like to add in or give guidance to, you know, to... Madam Chair? Yes, please. So this is my thought on this whole thing, is if I'm looking at a show like Commissioner Maynard just brought up, I know when I'm watching that show and that the host is giving his opinion that he's not telling me how to bet on a game. He is giving his opinion. I understand that. If for some reason that host said, here's a game that I think you should bet on, that's the line that has been drawn. And I think it's pretty clear, I would hope from the ESPN and Penn that that would never be said on that show. To me, that's the line. I'm watching the show. I know he's gonna give his opinion. I love the show too, Commissioner Maynard. But he only gives his opinion. He does not at any time that I remember say, you need to bet on this game, blah, blah, blah. I would have an issue with that. I don't have an issue with an opinion, if that makes sense. All right, Madam Chair. I agree, Commissioner Hill. I think I'm also interested. The reason I wanna see what Commissioner O'Brien's asked for is there going to then be the, it's a dance, right? So right after Pat McAfee makes these predictions, is there then an integration on the app, and it just so happens to be the Pat McAfee, whether they call it that or not, right? Parley, and then they start, that's why I'm interested. Where are the lines being drawn? But I agree with you. If it's just, it's another reason I wanna see the data, by the way, on the backend. If a prediction is made, no lines move, nothing changes, no integration happens on the app after, then I'm like, I'm definitely in your camp. If that's not the case, I'm probably somewhere else. So but to Caitlin's point earlier, I don't know until I see it, right? So I would say right now, what I see right now, I have no reason to believe that, this shouldn't go forward and launch on the 14th, right? But at the same time, I'm interested in this piece, ongoingly. And I agree that Commissioner Maynard on that point, one of the things I struggle with here is, we expect compliance with our regulations and our statutes and as a regulatory body, that is our job. And we have done a really good job in making sure our regulations address our values around consumer protection and responsible gaming and integrity of gaming. So to Commissioner Maynard's last point, right now, I don't understand, I see this proposal as being in full compliance as opposed to anticipating non-compliance. But I am, that's why I asked the question I asked, is there something about this deal that we are seeing now that puts them in non-compliance and in respect to, I understand, of course, it will be the facts and that's, we'll evaluate the facts that are before us when we judge a non-compliance. Right now, unless someone tells me otherwise, I'm not, I'm waiting to see how it works. You know, again, I'm hearing Commissioner Maynard request for the documents. I have no problem with that condition. I guess I'm wondering about the timing of it and how it will impact the deal. Yeah, so let me be clear, Madam Chair, I'm not asking for them to hold up launch in Massachusetts for production of that document. What I am flagging is the importance to me as one commissioner in getting access to that and the completion of it and then the production to this commission so that we can review it. And I think the example that Commissioner Maynard just gave is the exact kind of scenario that I worry about. Well, there might be people who watch ESPN all the time and absolutely know the line of distinction. We have had circumstances in front of us as well on non-compliance where the question is, but what if you go down to the consumer who's not as sophisticated, who may not know where the line is? So I'm not asking that the launch be delayed. I am asking that that be a condition so that our priority for the completion and production of that document is clear. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Hill. So I wanna share or support what Commissioner O'Brien is asking for. I too feel as though this should not hold up any launch on the 14th, but that's information that we really do need and deserve. And I would hope that we could get that information. So if you're looking for opinions and I think for sure the commission would like to see that, the entire commission would like to see that moving forward. I think we're all got our heads nodding. It was, I think my concern was about how it might affect the launch and I'm thinking scheduling, but frankly, like how do we get in beforehand if necessary? So do we all have a consensus? Commissioner Skinner, are you in agreement with that? I am, but I do have a question just in terms of process and sort of the language of the condition. What are we looking at? I don't think any of us are interested in the delay of a November 14th launch. But at the same time, we are interested to learn what is in that guidelines document. And so just procedurally, what's the language? And maybe I'm asking that we talk through that a little bit. What will be the language of this condition? And practically, what path does the commission have? What path will the commission take to review that and ask questions and have the opportunity to request adjustments if necessary? Todd, I'll have you help us on that. How we go about attaching new conditions. Sure, if I may, can I just ask Chris, is that document that we're talking about competitively sensitive in any way or is that a public document? Look, I probably would talk to ESPN about that. I think they are planning to make at least some portions of it public. I'm not sure about the entirety. But I'd like to just add that we're happy to provide obviously any information that the commission requests. We're an open book. We believe in transparency with regulators. I think the only thing that we're sort of struggling with is the idea of conditions on us as an applicant because of our use of a media partner when this is really an industry wide issue. And or only asses that we'd be treated like all operators. As soon as reaction to... Yeah, my reaction to that is the same reaction I had with the Barstool branding, which is you are unique in that you've gone out to a branding outside your company's brand to a pre-existing brand. And in this context, you create a heightened risk of the scenarios that we just talked about because of the conflation and so tight of the names and the exclusivity in the marketing and the cross pollination of the editorialization of the reports, et cetera. I think that puts you, you're not being treated differently, I would say than the similarly situated licensee. I think you are a licensee who is situated differently because of the branding that you have elected to do. So that's for me, why I don't feel like this is treating you any differently. And I think it's treating you consistently as you've gotten third-party branding as your exclusivity brand. The way I, I'm sorry, that I'm chairing. Commissioner Skinner, because I actually was going to seek some help from Chief O'Brien about the branding and our registrant process, but you would know about that as well. But ask your point, Commissioner Skinner. Oh, so I was just going to say that for me, this is a lot broader than branding. I mean, I think it falls under responsible gaming. And in that sense, we have not, we are not treating Penn any differently than any of the other licensees because that is something that we required from every single one of them during the application review process. And in my mind, this is absolutely necessary in order to move forward. Again, it's not, I think in any of our interests to delay a launch, but that's why I asked the question that I asked because we really are interested in understanding what your guardrails are relative to responsible gaming. That's what this is about for me. Responsible gaming consumer protection. And then we should go back then to Attorney Grossman because you asked the question about whether the agreement would be confidential. If we were to adopt a condition and I, you know, I am hearing Councilor Rogers bear questioning about distinguishing them in a way that's different from our other licensees. Well, do we have examples of other conditions that we've attached to other entities, licenses or Penn's current conditions now? What would you imagine the conditions to be? Yeah, I mean, I think ultimately the commission is looking to review this, the policy that ESPN is crafting that establishes the divide between the broadcast news, the segment and the sports weight drinks, sportsbook operations. And ultimately that's- So there has to be a condition? Well, not necessarily, I was just gonna say it's in some ways it's perhaps more closely aligned with an internal control because the purpose of the guideline, I suppose, is to ensure compliance with the commission's regulations, primarily the advertising regulations come to mind. And that is the whole purpose of internal controls. And it's a way that the commission seeks to understand how each of the operators is gonna achieve compliance with our rules and requirements. And that's what this guideline gets to. And to Councilor Rogers point, they're willing to provide it to us. Isn't it, Commissioner Bryan, would it be if they provide it to us? And in this public meeting, Penn has indicated their willingness to provide it, both in either confidential and public form depending on the nature. After our review, could that help inform conditions or let's just be a condition? So normally the internal controls are approved before the launch. So while I understand sort of categorizing it that way, we're in this posture of figuring out what to do. So the condition to me could be as simple as providing the detailed internal controls about the employee guidelines by date X. Or what about if the work? That is the production of the finalized guidelines which are critical to internal controls. So they need to be done anyway. So I guess my question is this, must it be either an internal control or a condition? I think the timing of the submission to us of the guidelines could be a condition, whereas the guidelines and approval themselves would be part of the internal controls, which is supposed to be done by the launch anyway. Okay, so I'll just repeat it one more time. And commissioners, if you, you know, if I'm, I guess I'm asking a fair question. A licensee would like to avoid conditions being attached to its license, you know, that's just the nature of their operations. There's been stated willingness to produce the document that we're asking. Must it be- Well, if we do it like a stay, you know, I would go back to my prosecutorial days where- Must it be either a condition or a condition? Produced by date X, the understanding is you will produce by date X or the condition goes into effect, right? So it's not a condition right now, but if they don't produce within a certain period of time, then that's the expectation. Matt, Madam Chair, your question is fair. I think my fair question back, and I think Commissioner O'Brien hit on it, what mechanisms do we have outside of condition to make sure that we do get this and can look at it? And I'm happy to explore whatever that is. I'm looking at Todd, but- Yeah, I think you can direct them to provide that document right now. And Chris Rodgers is sitting here telling you he will give it to you. So I'm not really concerned about that part of it. I think ultimately the other protection we have is that they have to abide and conform with the regulations. We obviously, and I'll just say this to Chris and Erin and Sam and Adam and everyone else that are pet, in my opinion, absolutely the commission would have asked to see this document if ESPN were the proposed entity during the licensing process. So there's no doubt in my mind that you treated the same as everyone else. This is really just a timing question at this point. So I think it's very fair to wanna see the document. I think it's also fair to say that they're required to follow the regulations. And this is a mechanism that we will use to ensure that they are doing so and we'll hold them to that particular document. And they're saying that that's okay, and that they will do that. So I think that it would be helpful to receive the document in a timely fashion. It's not even done yet. It appears so we can't require it today, but that we receive it. The commission can review it, potentially parts of it in public, potentially parts of it in private as we've considered this particular proceeding to be a part of the licensing process. So there is potentially some protection under the public records exemption for this particular document as well. So we'll have to see what's in the document before we can apply it as to whether it's a public or private document at this juncture. And then if the commission is satisfied with its contents, they could just be incorporated into a policy procedure internal control. And then we would, I think, have achieved the result that the commission is looking for, which is ultimately compliance with the requirements. So I think that if that, in general, in broad strokes satisfies the concerns. You help clarify my level of comfort. It really would have been something that in the ordinary course of the application, it's a matter of timing, we would have asked and it would have been in place. So it wouldn't necessarily be a condition or even an internal control. We saw other licensees, governance documents, et cetera, without making it a condition. But we do want to have it be timely. Commissioner O'Brien, what we do- That's what I'm looking for more clarity on the timing of the production because we are taking a leap of faith in saying, relying on the history of compliance of the companies to go ahead on the 14th, knowing this is a work in progress. But I'm sure once that happens, everyone's gonna be inundated with their day-to-day work as well, I don't want this to be forgotten about. And so I'm looking for a little more clarity on, is this 30 days out? Where are we? Because it's a critical piece of the compliance program that is not before us. Yeah, I would say on timing, we'll provide it as soon as possible. I'm a little hesitant to speak for ESPN on timing because it works through their process and to them, they want to make sure they get it right. So I think something in the next 30 to 60 days or something like that would make sense. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Skitter. So I would like to see a more definitive response than that before launch on November 14th. Madam Chair, you pointed out that in the review process for the temporary licenses, we didn't include the provision of that kind of a document as a condition. That's because we didn't need to because as we were reviewing preliminary suitability, we had the opportunity to, at that time, withhold a passing grade, if you will, on that particular, any particular section in the application. And so to clarify, Commissioner Skitter, my apologies, you're absolutely right. I was saying once it's produced, we didn't have it make an internal control or anything. But I don't remember that, but you're absolutely right. We didn't have to because we just didn't have outstanding matters. So the point is, ideally, we would have had this document long before now. It's unfortunate that it has become an issue of timing. Yes, we've known about this deal for quite some time, but I think it was demonstrated at one of our last meetings around the subject that we didn't have anything to act on, anything formal or official from Penn. And so, again, it's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this situation now but I would really push for a more definitive timeline relative to when, Chris, you think you would be able to provide that document prior to November 14th, and that is, again, a date by which you will produce it. Yeah, look, I guess I'm struggling with a couple of things here. We are going to provide the document. We've committed to that. And the key tenants are outlined in the letter, but just to be clear, we don't view this as being something that is required under the regs. We were doing this as a voluntary policy in order to make sure that, by we, I really mean our partnership with ESPN. ESPN is doing this policy to make sure that they really maintain their journalistic integrity. And it's really about perceptions for them. So I think the discussion around why we don't have the policy now is, in our view, it's not required. And I know it sounds like a broken record on this, but lots of sports betting operators have partnerships with media companies and the same issues would be applicable. I'm struggling to figure out why, just because there's a branding similarity that you would not be required that you would not be requiring other operators to submit similar policies. So the fact that you're not appreciating where I'm coming from in terms of how critical this branding issue is to this question, I don't see this as voluntary. I don't see this as optional. For me, going forward in terms of, are the protections there, particularly with your internal compliance and the house rules, this is a critical piece of it. And I have every faith that both you and ESPN will execute this in a diligent, careful manner. But I don't agree with you that this is optional. On my view. Chris, I feel like I'm having amnesia because I remember going through this process on initial licensure over and over again and really drilling and grilling everybody that came before us that had this same issue, including them. So I mean, this is, I just, I'm kind of at a loss on you've agreed to do it. And why wouldn't we just leave it at that that you agreed to do it? Why are we? I think that they've agreed to produce a document and I think they would recognize and they view it as voluntary. Commissioner Maynard, I think I'd love for you to elaborate on analogies because I'm at a loss. Farmstools, certainly there were different line of questions and there was a different model. But I don't, I think today's issues are kind of unique for us. So it's the purchase versus the vendor? I just. The what? I'm sorry, I missed it. I'm hearing you, the only thing I can figure what you're saying is the difference is the purchase of the company versus the vendor model. But I totally disagree. I mean, I think that we always made it clear with every licensee that they owned. Oh, yeah. The potential issue was here. And so for me, that's what I would focus on. I just. That I agree with that. That was helpful. That's what you're thinking. And again, not to be an advocate for during Rogers, you can speak to themself, but they led with that fact that they own it. I think what's unique about the situation is there's been a suggestion that because this is an exclusive branding arrangement that that raises new issues for us. And a perception issue. And theoretically, this production will help address that for that, my fellow commissioners. I think counselors, I hear Tony Rogers saying he doesn't see where the wrecks require it. And I think that's a fair question. Can we help him in any way? Caitlin. I don't think we're asking for this pursuant to a particular reg. What we're doing here today is because there was a substantive change in the application moving from barstool to ESPN. The commission has come back and asked as part of the application process because Penn is operating under a temporary license for additional application related information. So if we've been doing this back in the initial process, I think this is exactly the type of information the commission would have asked for as a supplement to the application. And that is what I'm hearing is being asked for again today. So it's not asking for a pursuant to a statute or a reg or anything like that. It's just information the commission would like to have to evaluate the ongoing application process. And Chris, if it's helpful, maybe you already know this, but that material change that Tony Monaghan is referencing is case law as opposed to statutory and regulatory law, correct, Caitlin? Correct. And look, just to clarify if I could commission, we have no issues providing the document. So I think the only thing that we're, that I just want to be careful about is I don't want to overcommit on timing because it does have to run through the procedures at ESPN. And I was only mentioning the voluntary nature as a rationale for why we haven't produced it to date, but we are working on it. We do understand the concerns raised and we're hopeful that the policy that we're putting together will address those concerns. So again, Commissioner O'Brien's point of saying she doesn't see it as long here. And I think it does stem back to what was that case law analysis that we were actually important about in our last meeting. So, Commissioner O'Brien. So really what I'm looking for is, we did this during the application process too, which is by a certain date, the expectation is the supplemental materials we received. If for some reason that date isn't going to be satisfied, then we should advance it and know in advance of the deadline whether we have to bump it out and why. So I feel like that would satisfy the concerns Attorney Rogers that you're raising in terms of keeping it on the calendar, but acknowledging the fact that you have another party here that has internal processes that need to be completed. Yeah, look, we're open to that. I mean, we, as I think I said, we want to be transparent with all regulators. Like, and if this is something that the Commission requests we're going to provide as soon as possible. So I think what you laid for does make sense. That's a gross thing. Can you help us out on commission over? And I'm sorry, I just didn't know. I know that Commissioner Skinner was looking for a sooner date than sort of what I had thrown out. And so I just didn't want to not go back on that. Commissioner Skinner was going to turn to Todd to see what he was going to suggest on timing. Yeah, well, so if I could just say, I understand that they are Chris, there's some things outside of your control. I know there's another party here that has to sort of weigh in. I'm not looking for an advanced date beyond what you've already indicated was reasonable, 30 to 60 days. I am just hoping that between now and Monday, November 14th when you hope to launch that you have some more of a clearer ideas to when you would be able to produce that document. I know you're anticipating 30 to 60 days right now, just on the fly, but it would really be helpful to understand, again, between now and Monday, what you expect in terms of a production date? What if we sort of set a production date today and then I guess if we wait until next week to Monday, I'm not sure how it gets in front of us. Commissioner Skinner until our next public meeting. So I'm wondering if, you know, I think that there's a good faith effort here to produce. Commissioner, I've got Councillor Grossman to help out. Sure, so the commission has a meeting scheduled for December 14th. What if we said that either provide the document by the date or appear and offer an update as to where the document stands? I'm fine as long as if it's not going to be the 14th, that the reason and the request for the extension just has to come in before that 14th, like the week prior. If it's not going to be in by the 14th, we could have communication the week prior as to when they expect to produce it. But that works fine for me. Commissioner Skinner. Same. Good. Commissioner. Can I make one suggestion on timing? If the meeting is the 12th, the 14th, you'll want it a little bit before. So set the deadline a week in advance of the 14th so you can actually read it. And then a week before that, you can see if it's not going to come in. Well, we're going to get a whole lot of time to read something, Kate, but that's excellent. But commissioners, what have you suggested? Chris said 30 to 60 days. Where are we today? How's that sound? If we what if we said, you know, what if we said by the 11th or by the 8th, ideally, Chris? And then what I do here, Commissioner O'Brien say, look, we we're we are firm and rigorous, but we do want to be fair. And so if something comes up where you can't make that, we're going to hear, you know, we want to hear from you. Commissioners, we're in agreement with that. It's just I think Commissioner O'Brien is stating, yeah, that it just if we could hear sooner and we have such great communications between you and our team, I'm sure that if this becomes an impossibility or just, you know, unforeseen issues, communicate that to Heather and Todd and their team and the teams and we'll be reasonable. But for right now, we'd love to have that production for our December 14th meeting and to the extent that we have some time in advance. And I made that kind of fresh remark because often we do three things the night before because we're nimble and we want to be prepared and we want to be helpful. So does that sound okay, Chris? Like maybe the 11 March solar with understanding that you do, you have to go back and speak with others, other stakeholders. And if it becomes clear to you today, but that just can't happen, communicate it back. Commissioner, does that sound fair? Is there anything else, commissioners? Okay. I did have something, I'm sorry. I mean, on that point, I think I'm good. But I had another question relative to disassociation with Barstool Sportsbook and sort of the timing of that, you know, how you'll process that in the player data. I'm assuming it will be just if you could talk about, you know, sort of transitioning from one company to the other and what that will look like for the consumer. I'm particularly interested in notice to the consumer and just like your efforts to communicate with it with current patrons about the transition. Sure, happy to address that. So as you know, the divestiture to Barstool is complete. We're in the process now of preparing for the rebrand. All the data, customer data resides with Penn. So none of that is with Barstool. It's all at Penn. From a customer standpoint, we've already started the process of communicating to customers that there is a rebranding occurring. They would have already seen emails and pop-ups and into the app alerting them that the rebrand is on the way. From a process standpoint, when we relaunch, they will be directed to go into the app store to download the new app. And then all their customer information will then poured over into the new ESPN bet app. And is there an opt-out process? Should anyone wish to engage in that? Yes. And that will come up, that will appear as a pop-up as well. In other words, opting out, is there an opportunity to opt out before the data gets transferred to the new platform? Oh, there is no, just to be clear, there is no data transfer per se. I mean, the data's already there. It's already on our system. It will be a new app, but the data will just transport over. I see, okay. Thank you. And that will, that you're proposing that that will begin to happen at launch on November 14th, correct? Correct. Michelle Bryan. So there was the statement that it is complete. There was, and again, I want to be careful about what I say. The executive session on the details of the divestiture, the last meeting with Penn. There are some other components I was hoping to get further detail on. And Madam Chair, I don't want to speak out of turn, but there were certain components that might be ongoing in terms of the connection of the Barstool brand with Penn. And I was hoping to get further clarity on that, which I believe they might want to be doing an executive session. I'm going to turn to Council. I want to be very, very careful with respect to our open meeting law. Would we be able to explore that under today's agenda? Or would we have to mark that up for a different, a different public meeting? I'm sorry, could just have a second. I'm just looking at the agenda. Thanks. Personally, I would be more comfortable if we could mark that up for a different meeting. Commissioner O'Brien? Yeah, so there's a kind of a reference in, I think, B potentially, but not C, which was the executive section section. So to your point, might be cleaner to get an update apart from what we're talking about today. Councilor Grossman? Yeah, I think Commissioner O'Brien kind of hit it on the nail on the head. It is alluded to, but a lot of an abundance of caution, perhaps if everyone's comfortable, if we could just be a little more precise, that's probably very approach. Yep. It's our full intent to comply with the open meeting law. And so if there's any ambiguity here, I want to be able to, to consider that interpretation. Okay. So if we could put that question in the parking lot for future meeting, unless the question gets resolved some other way, Commissioner O'Brien. Right. Any other question pertaining to the ESPN deal? So I just want to confirm Chief O'Brien, right now, the status of ESPN Enterprises? Yes. So they are, they currently hold a sportsway during registration and have since March of this year. And have been, I'm sorry? And have they, they're the effective date of that registration is March of this year. So they've had it for a while. So March of this year was effective. Got it. Any other questions for Kara? Or we have Zach here, anyone else? Now, in terms of action, if we are adopting no commit conditions at this point, we can wish Penn and Attorney Rogers and Team, good luck for November 14th at this juncture and no other action needs to be taken, correct? I see Caitlin. Okay. I believe that's correct. Yeah. Commissioner O'Brien. But just good luck. I'm sure you're going to have a very busy week starting probably yesterday. So good luck. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Erin and Chris. Thank you very much. Thank you to your team for being here. Thank you to Heather and team and to our legal team, a very, you know, it's an exciting time for Penn and we wish you a very, very best. Okay. And we'll look for that production in timely fashion. Again, open channels of communication and we are very thankful for that, Chris. And we appreciate the level of cooperation very much. I'll set commissioners. I need a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Okay. Any concerns, edits? Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes.