derage people. But it definitely is at the top, absolutely at the top of the list of things that our marketing team is focused on. Joe's nodding because he's, how many times have you asked me if you could do something and I've said no? Yeah, I mean, there have been opportunities on, let's say college campuses that don't have anything to do with college or university, let's say a concert that we have turned down. And that's pre-sports wagering you're talking about, just historical. Yes. And again, we were going to do the marketing for sports wagering for the retail portion of the business and we would apply exactly the same principles. Can I build on that, Jackie? You said we. I think I noticed that you're going to use KHA for brand activation. And there's been a lot of regulations, regulatory discussions as we build out our regulatory framework include questions around the third party affiliates. Can you educate us a bit? Do you have control or retain control over content on all the way through your branding partner and other marketing partners, advertising partners so that if it gets passed down through to a third party affiliate somehow, do you maintain control over content? We do. So I'd say over 90% of the marketing content is created in-house. And so what goes to KHA might be assisting us and they've worked with us for a really long time and are very, very familiar with all of our restrictions in terms of marketing. They would be more helping us develop different concepts, but we're responsible for engaging with who sends out our emails. And I mean, obviously we contract with a third party to do those email drops, but we provide the content to them. We provide the list to them and they're essentially just sending it out on our behalf. We don't subcontract our marketing to somebody else to carry out without our approval. And that's with respect to, of course, the list because we're, of course, concerned about VSE. Also, in terms of content, you really do keep, I heard you say it's a high percentage I've already forgotten. Oh, I'm probably wrong. It's probably closer to 99% but you know, we have dedicated personnel in our building who are responsible for developing our marketing content, our promotional content. So they get that approved by legal. They get, all of that is reviewed and they've all been trained. They're all very, very familiar without restrictions. Commissioners, other questions on, which of course flows from the responsible gaming all the way through advertising? I have a question. Yes, commissioner. I know that there is a shuttle program used by our court. Is there any anticipation on adding stops, changing stops because of sports wagering? Not because of sports wagering. I think we're looking at that generally to see how effective it is. So, you know, we know that we have some routes that are running somewhat empty and how to make that more efficient and so, but not specifically for sports wagering. Okay, thank you. Other questions on responsible gaming? Okay. Well, again, we'll check in on a consensus on the quality of the response to section two. Commissioners, thumbs up from commissioner Hill. Yeah, I think it met expectations. Commissioner Maynard. I agree. Commissioner Skinner. I agree. Okay, we're all set. I'm in agreement as well. I think this makes sense to break for lunch, commissioners. Does that make sense to you? It's just a round up to 110 will return 140. I think that's an indicator that I probably need something to eat because that was hard for me to calculate just now. So, 140 will return. Thank you so much, commissioners. Gabe. Yes. I think if you could just bring down the screen for a short minute, that would be great. Sounds good. Okay, commissioner Hill. Commissioners, I'm going to ask if we could just extend our lunch break a bit. I would say that probably for to bring it to a 205, please. Okay. Eileen, if you're talking, you're muted. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll go into 205. Thank you. I'll set, Dave. Thank you. I'll set. Okay. So, good afternoon and thank you again, everyone for the public's patience and for the team's patience. I want to say that we're reconvening the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's public meeting 408 because we're doing so on a virtual stage. I need to do a roll call. Commissioner O'Brien, thank you. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. The wrong button. I'm here. And commissioner Maynard. I'm here. Okay. So, I appreciate everyone taking a little bit of extra time. When the applications were first submitted, we received for category one the first three and our team has done an excellent job making sure that all the components of the applications come to us because they are all individual files. And I had noted that there were a few missing components that had been uploaded to us on Encore Boston Harbor. And in fact, those were all fixed except for, I noted today, the lottery piece and that was fixed earlier today. That was a one folder. But in fact, section F3, which was not available, was still not in our folder at lunchtime. And I realized it wasn't on our end after Executive Director Wells did some further increase. And it just turned out that there was a technical difficulty on the other end. And in fact, Encore Boston Harbor had prepared them and immediately shot the subsections. I think it's four or five over to us for F3. So, we have received those and we've had the opportunity. I believe commissioners need to review them. It was not a technical difficulty on our end. And it didn't seem like a difficulty for you, but just perhaps an uploading challenge. So, we did anticipate these kinds of issues happening in our regulation. So, Councillor Rosemont, I don't want to speak for you, but I believe that we have the opportunity to accept supplemental information or address this kind of a scenario. And if you could advise the commission, that would be great. Sure. There are two places in the regulations that are relevant to this type of situation. The first is in section 211.010, which you'll recall discusses the extension of time for filing of the applications. And it reads that the commission may, in its discretion, extend the time for filing a complete application to enable the applicant to cure a deficiency in its application, provided that the application forms were submitted and the applicable fee was paid before the established deadlines, which seems to be the case here. The second section, just to bring back up, is that relative to supplementing information. And we talked about this a little bit earlier. It's section 218.04 in part C in particular, which says that the commission may require or permit, in the commission's discretion, the applicant to provide additional information and documents. So, I think both of those sections would seem to apply here to allow for this circumstance. So, commissioners, with that, I think we would have to make some kind of a determination here if we feel that we can grant encore the permission to complete their application with today's submission. And I guess I would say it might fit more into that regulation than supplemental, because it is a piece we expected. To be to note, F1 and F2, we did receive those and quite properly on the response was consistent with the application, which was that they're not particularly applicable to the retail portion of the applicant in this instance for category one. Commissioners, the chair has asked a question. I don't want to answer my own question. Are you looking for agreement? Are you looking for motion? I mean, are you looking for procedural next step? Is that what you're asking? Well, I guess maybe discussion first to see how we feel. And then if we can think about the regulation that I think Councillor Grossman has presented. The only reason why I said that was to be a bit funny, because I realized I didn't really want to answer my own question. But I think it's a fair question that you asked. It could be straight motion if commissioners are okay with that. Commissioner O'Brien to address what we did anticipate. Yeah. Yeah, I didn't mean to, you know. I appreciate your speaking, Commissioner O'Brien. Jump to the queue. I was just trying to figure out what question you're asking. Madam chair. Yes, Commissioner Hill. Yeah, if you're looking for consensus, if we should be accepting these, the answer is for me, yes. There was a mistake made on the upload and we all recognize that. I don't think it was done on purpose. So I have no problem accepting these today after the due date. If you're looking for a motion of such a thing, if the rest of my fellow commissioners feel the same way, you certainly can do that. Thank you. Can I add something just for the public? Yes, please. These applications are hundreds of pages, right? And of what we're talking about in this sub section here is seven pages of hundreds approaching thousand page applications. Clerical errors happened and I am happy to accept something that to me was a clerical error in how quickly these were given to us. And that's fair because as I said, you know, within our own team that they, we had our own challenges uploading the pieces and we were monitoring that and fixing that. So, and actually it's amazing, there were very minimal challenges in our own uploading process. I think it was with respect to three subsections. So I don't want to overstate that either. It's just that I assumed that this was again internal. And I'm glad, you know, what is interesting and a part of our discussion is that, in fact, Ms. Crumb had them done. They were ready to go. They came right over to us. So it was, it was technical. So do we have a consensus around that, Commissioner Skinner? I appreciate Commissioner Maynard's context and I'm going to add my own. From my perspective, I was confused about the sections F and G. If you recall, during the meeting I had been referring to the financial stability and integrity section as F. And in fact, that is part of G, the compliance. I think my fellow commissioners and staff know that, you know, I have a great attention to detail if I do say so myself. And I'm actually pretty shocked that I didn't catch this in advance. But that being said, and notwithstanding my concerns about section G, which I understand we'll get to, I think the application is otherwise sufficient. And I would venture to say beyond efficient. And I don't have a problem moving forward with the acceptance of that section today. Thank you. Thank you for that. Commissioner Maynard, do you want to add or do you want to make a motion? Yes. I'm scribbling because I figured you were going to ask me for the motion language. So I'm just going to go to sites with Todd before I actually do that. That's why I kind of, that's why I appreciated your earlier question. Because yeah, I was like, I'm going to start drafting now. So let me ask the question up front and then we can discuss. Thank you very much. And I think we appreciate the little bit of levity here. So thank you so much. Todd, at 211.012 and 10, are those the relevant subsections? 10, yes, two. Two talks about survey, right? Incomplete administratively closed list authorizations given pursuant to 10. Is that only the initial survey? Yeah, that's, yeah, I think that's just the scoping survey. That's why I didn't. Okay. So just 10. Yep. Certainly. So, Madam Chair, I move that the commission authorize the late submission today of so much of EVH's category one application as pertains to sections F3, I think subs A through F, consistent with our discretion under 205CMR 211.0110. Second. Any further discussion? And then I'll go ahead and take the vote. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. You moved on me. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you. And so we've taken care of that. And I think then we can begin with our discussion, which we had anticipated earlier. And again, thank everyone for your time. So I assume that everyone has had more than enough time to look at those sections. Okay. So let's go to section F. Any questions? So, Ms. Croma, I will, I will ask the question around the monitoring piece for integrity. If you could explain the relationship that you have using WinBet for that as well as the US integrity platform. Thanks, Jackie. Sure. And I thank you for your consideration and allowing us, of course, to get this to you. Frankly, we were a little confused on this section because some of this pertains only to the mobile. And we spent a lot of time going back and forth saying how is this done? But from an integrity perspective, much like we were talking earlier about the traders and how they monitored the bets, this would be done through the WinBet side of it. So as the bets come through, they'll be able to, they'll be able to push it through their system. And if they do get that phone call that says there's an issue, then, then they can, they can implement their procedures to stop it from that end. And we'll, of course, work very closely with us to monitor that. Right. And in terms of the US integrity platform, that's integrated in, can you just, for purposes of everybody understanding fully what that means, that would be clear? Sure. So that's a platform that is through the trading system, essentially, and monitoring all the bets that are being placed. So if there's any sort of issue, it's a, it's a group that many, many operators subscribe to. And they're monitoring bets across, across any particular sports in sports or events. And if there's issues, they will notify all the subscribers of an issue so that they can immediately hold trading with respect to that, or make whatever decision is appropriate. Does that explain a little? Yeah, I guess. And so I just want to make sure everybody, you know, understood that the US integrity is a different platform and either WinBets contracts as a subscriber or, or both entities. It sounds like it would be through WinBets. That's, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Other questions on section F? Okay, then let's move to section G and a reminder because, and then honestly, Commissioner Skinner, it's a, it was fair for, I knew you had conflated the two earlier when you said F and G, but you had quite properly mentioned that you were wanting to address suitability, which is in G, then of course the financial stability and integrity, and then the compliance issue, all in, in section G. I'm sure you want to get consensus on this section. Oh, I'm so sorry. You beat me to it, Commissioner. Thank you so much. Do we have a consensus on section on F? Yes. Meeting expectations, particularly given the, okay, our earlier action. Commissioner Skinner, are you lost that? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Now for G questions on, on section G. Evidence that takes a village. I appreciate everyone's assistance along the way. Okay. Commissioner Skinner. No questions about the substance of what ABH has provided in this section. I would just turn again to the discussion around wind bed and, you know, that, that their response, I guess, or, or Encore's response on behalf of wind bed to the questions, particularly to G4, D, E, and F, as well as G G3, G and H. But really overall, I mean, you know, this is where I turn to Pod to kind of help, help me and the rest of the commissioners navigate, you know, how we go about getting answers relative to wind bed for sections, section G in the, in the context of on for application review. Well, I think it's certainly fair to inquire of the applicant to the extent they know the answers to the questions. I think that the, we can look at the other application for this limited purpose. I just know that this is a different situation than the one that we dealt with recently, which relied more heavily on the other application. So this is a more limited inquiry. So I think it's different and it would certainly be fair to look at that application itself if you needed clarity on a specific issue. And between those, and again, keep in mind that this is a public meeting and not an adjudicatory proceeding. So there's a little more flexibility when it comes to looking at materials. As long as your decision is based on actual information discussed at the meeting, then you can rely upon it. So I think those are the two tools that you have before you to try to answer those questions today. And I would, I would turn to Jackie. Yesterday, we heard from a representative from that MGM on behalf of MGM Springfield. And although she spoke in a very limited capacity, I'm wondering if we, if you could invite someone from WinBed, if they were available, to join us with the chair's commission to be able to speak to those questions. I guess, Commissioner Skinner, just before we have Jackie answer that, do you mind repeating the questions that you would like answered? Well, all of G in general, with a specific focus on G3, G and H. G3, G and H. And G4, D, E and F. G4, D, E is in point. D is in David, E and F. Okay. Jackie, are you comfortable? Are you able to answer that or do you need to have somebody from WinBeds and if you don't have anybody available? I guess I want to remind on my understanding is that these are questions that will be answered by the WinBeds in its capacity as a category three applicant. They're going to be filling out the same application. And that will happen next week. For the purpose of today, suitability of WinBeds, these lines of questions would not be done with respect to other vendors, if I'm correct. And I just want to put that out there that there are other vendors right now that will be working with Bumka, Boston, Harvard who are not being asked these questions. And so I just want to make sure I'm comfortable with the fact that we're asking this of the applicant in a way that's somewhat different to be fair, unless the applicant is comfortable. The reason why they can do it is because of their or for affiliation perhaps. If not, they didn't have that. We probably wouldn't have them readily available or vendor XYZ as I indicated earlier. Commissions, I yield to the others to see your level of comfort on these questionings. The distinction for me here is that WinBed is providing a service to Encore in connection with its retail operations, the category one application that includes trading services, for instance. And that's unlike any other vendor that Encore would be doing business with. Although vendors, particularly primary vendors, as this as WinBed would be deemed if we're not being considered in connection with the category one application, they do have to undergo a suitability review. Under 23K. Under 23K. Yes, under 23K. Thank you for the clarification. You know, but because WinBed is new to Massachusetts, I think, well, for me, it's important that we at least get an understanding of, you know, kind of what their compliance history is, whether or not they are, you know, financially stable. So that so I just wanted to lay that framework as the distinction here between their role, WinBed's role in this category one application and a general vendor. Councillor Grossman. I apologize. I was actually in the middle of reading something else. Can you give me that question again? Well, I guess I just was turning to you because I'm a little bit, I want to hear from the fellow commissioners, but Commissioner Skinner would like to do a line of inquiry concerning this vendor that we wouldn't be doing with other vendors. So I'm just wondering about that.  And if, if Attorney Crum is positioned to do, to answer, but if she doesn't have a WinBed's person available or they're not prepared, I guess I'm just being careful that it's not held against them. You know, yesterday I didn't anticipate the question and it all happened quickly. So. Yeah, I think. Oh, sorry. Oh, go right ahead. I was just going to say, I think the, the inquiry itself is entirely appropriate. The concern I think would be that we would, it could be viewed as though we were treating different applicants dissimilarly. And so we'd want to be able to draw distinctions between this situation and the others, which I think you can do. Again, I think this is a far more narrow inquiry than the one that was contemplated yesterday, for example. And that's because the application kept on referring to the WinBed's application. I mean, not the WinBed MGM. I think, I think it's different, but I, people could view it similarly. So we just want to be clear that we're just inquiring and a couple of very narrow issues and not, you know, looking for the holistic answer to what their operation is like and who they are. Commissioners, Michelle Bryan, thoughts? We can turn to Jackie if she's whatever you'd like to do, Commissioner Bryan, but yes. So I've been, I've been struggling this since we did all of the ones in terms of, you know, the conceptualization I had that this was simply adding another option to the services of batting at the gaming establishments is not exactly how it turns out. So there is a complexity to the suitability of the corporation and the, and the cat one that bleeds over in my mind a little bit into sometimes the cat three co-partners, depending on who they are. I think yesterday it was so integrally intertwined. I don't know how we could separate them based on the presentation of the application. This is a little bit different, but there are references to WinBed and then Caesar's a little bit in this, which I'm having, I'm trying to parse out in my mind where the line is drawn for purposes of today. And so I hear Commissioner Skinner, she's got some questions that go into WinBed and I certainly wouldn't want to go forward in a way that makes her uncomfortable making a decision unless you know, Todd, you're telling us that it's kind of crossing a line that's affecting the integrity of the process. I don't think there are bright lines here, first of all. I think that again, discussing WinBed here is I think entirely appropriate. It's clearly related to this retail operation. You do have an application before you, and so I don't think it would be unfair, certainly, to discuss that, not for final consideration, of course, but just as it relates to the category one application for you. And to the extent you find this different from the issue from yesterday or even on Tuesday, then I think it's fair to go into this area today. I think all three of them are a little bit different for me, but I can see I can see why going into all three. I can understand Commissioner Skinner's desire to go in. I kind of would like some of the answers as well.  I just, it's completely process making sure that we are straight on it. So Madam Chair, on the equity issue, it is an important one, and I thought thank you for raising it. But I do see these as the applications as different. You know, PBC I'm not even going to discuss. I think that's in a category of its own in terms of the issues that we dealt with on Monday. The difference between this application and the MGM's application yesterday is I did not feel as though I could make a determination on that application without reviewing the that MGM application in its entirety. Here, I do feel comfortable moving forward, you know, in making a determination. Despite not having the WinBet application in front of me, I would like to have Encore or WinBet speak to those specific items in Section G. But I'm not thinking at the moment that that will be an impediment or the lack of a response relative to that section will be an impediment to the Commission moving forward in its deliberations today. So, Todd, you know, I hope that is clearer in terms of my rationale for digging into this aspect of the application with Jackie and clarifies the distinction between the applications as I see it. I think that's appropriate. The only thing, again, just that you should not do is make final judgments as to the WinBet application since those proponents aren't here to defend anything in the application. So, to the extent that there's information in there that would be helpful in addressing the Category 1 application, I think that's okay. But you should not make final decisions as to WinBet in any way today. Yeah, I think that goes without saying. But thank you. So, Councillor Grossman, I just need a little help. We've got Ms. Crumb who is doing a great job at listening. And she's been asked to answer questions concerning on information that she may well be able to answer. She may not be able to answer because WinBets is not available or WinBets just isn't prepared to answer. So, Jackie, if you'll indulge us, I think what we would say is that Commissioner Skinner has pointed out a few sections where there are some level of comfort you could give her comfortably. And then I'll allow the two of you to clarify. So, if I could just clarify, you're not asking questions about our Section G3, GH, G4, DENF. You're asking questions, you would like to ask questions about WinBets application, the sections from WinBets application. No, I guess I'm asking, you know, whether you are comfortable answering those questions in Section G as those questions pertain to WinBets. So, I don't have WinBets. Well, I can probably find it. But I would need to bring in someone from WinBets to answer questions, which is completely appropriate and not an issue for us at all. Just as another, if I could add this to the discussion, we, if we're fortunate enough to receive a Category 1 license, we would be the person standing behind that, WinMA LLC, not WinBets. So, if one of our vendors, whether it's WinBets or any of the others, some who are gaming and some who are not gaming related, caused us to breach any of the regulations or internal controls, we would accept responsibility for that. Having said that, it's really not an issue for us to get. If it gives anyone comfort, it's not an issue for us to get someone from WinBets to answer any concerns. The only thing I would say is those sections that you raised potentially contain information that we would ask if it could be discussed in the executive session. I'll say I haven't read that application yet. So, it would be, it would be cold to me, too. So, Commissioner Skinner, I think I really appreciate Ms. Crown reminding everyone that the control and the responsibility lies with the applicant, the Category 1 applicant. Commissioner Skinner? Well, maybe let's put that pin in that and let you think about that. Commissioner, do you have other questions with respect to Section G that relates directly to the applicant? No other questions? Sorry, yes. Here we go. Mine is more. And Heather, are you still on? Yes, there she is. I'm here. I wish I was here a little earlier, but I heard the Section G and I realized I need to tune in. So, if I can't answer it, I might need a refresher of what you were all been discussing, but I'm happy to give it a shot. Well, completely. For you, I'm jumping to a completely different number. So, the application itself for G1, we have suitability and corporate integrity. And in that is what they filled out in terms of the BED and the report that you summarized earlier for us. But then there's also any joint venture agreements, applicants, businesses, contractors, vendors. And so, I think some of the conundrum I'm having is the application calls for more than what the traditional suitability, you know, the Four Corners report addresses. So, I have some RG questions, particularly as deceasers, but I'm looking basically to see from Ivy's perspective, suitability on the Catlin application today. Whether reserving any questions on joint ventures or vendors for another time waves anything in terms of my ability to ask questions going forward. I think, you know, it's a good question. And if I, following what I heard from the earlier discussion, I do think if there are questions with respect to Caesar's RG program, those, I think would, and I obviously will certainly want to hear what Todd has to say as well. I think those could be addressed when we talk about Caesar's their application as a category three. Does that make sense, Todd? I think we're on the same page with that. I just, I'm just looking for confirmation of that on the record because we do put it in as part of this application in G1. I'm comfortable waiting until we get to the Cat3. I guess my wouldn't be if they, if there wasn't an opportunity separately on a separate Cat3 for them. But I just want to make sure that I'm procedurally handling that the right way. Commissioner O'Brien, do you mind just allowing Jackie to say why that was included? Because it is in response to a very narrow question, right? A narrow question. And I want to be fair that it wasn't, you were complete in your application by including it. So Jackie, if you just want to explain the document that Commissioner O'Brien is referencing, it's in G1. It's G1. And I know some of it is portions of it are redacted, but it's, I think you put it in there to be over inclusive and in abundance of caution, but I think the substance of it we're going to address at the Cat3. Oh, sure. So when we had some calls with Director Wells and the team, Executive Director Wells, I should say, we were asked to include any of these joint vent, any of the tethered agreements as part of the response to this question. Right. And I think it might be, there's, it's the inclusion of that in our app that I think, and I'm not going to speak for Commissioner Skinner, but I've been, it's, we have to figure out where to draw the line and some of these cross over more substantively than others. On this one, I'm comfortable holding my other questions on that until we get to the Cat3. Thank you for that, Commissioner O'Brien. Other questions on G, there are three very quite separate sections. That's why I've gone over the titles each time. I guess I would just ask RSM generally, is there anything if they're available still? They may not be. They may have all left. Which is interesting. Chair, if you'd like, I could punch face Monica about seeing if they could come back. No, there's Connor. Okay, great. Thanks. Thanks, Connor. Just generally from a high level, I didn't hear anything from RSM that indicates any particular matter that was a flag concerning their finance, the applicant's financial stability. No, nothing was identified in our initial review. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? I think that the lack of questions, and I'm not forgetting Commissioner Skinner's earlier questions, the lack of questions is an indicator of the completeness of the application. Commissioner Skinner, do you have some thoughts as to how you want to move forward comfortably or what we can do? Yes, I do. Given that Jack is offered to have a representative from WinVet appear, I think that makes the most sense. The only outstanding question I think is for Todd, relative to the executive session and whether this meets the criteria in order to do so. Well, it depends what exactly the commission would like to discuss in executive session. I can tell you that we have only noticed on the agenda that the commission may go into executive session for discussing issues that may arise under section 6i, which you'll recall involve trade secrets, competitively sensitive or proprietary information, which have publicly released would place the applicant in a competitive disadvantage. We did not notice the privacy exemption or any of the other exemptions to the other provisions of the executive session law. So if there are issues that are not don't fall under 6i, then it's not as clean, I would say. And we would really need to understand what we are going to be discussing in executive session. And the only way to get there would be to pin it under the matters that were not reasonably anticipated at the time we posted the agenda. This is not certainly something that came up, so that's why it's not on. I have to say that, Commissioner Skinner, I'm so respectful of your desire to have that information. I just do think it's outside of the scope of our review of this particular application. You know, Longford Boston Harbor appeared today to answer the questions that we're looking at. And well, you know, I might want to know more about their advertising vendor. You might want to know more about their price setting vendor. That's one, I know that we, as I hear from Councillor Hall, that that's actually the vendors, if our regulatory structure, they remind me, we've decided IEB is equipped to make that assessment. And I know that, you know, you're hearing trade services as something that seems more core to the mission. And I get that completely. I do, I understand that. But another Commissioner might say more core to the mission is, as I said, marketing, right? And so I feel like there's a little bit of creep going on here in terms of the scope of our review of the application. I want to be cautious, but I also don't want it to be dismissive. And I am trying to strike the right balance here. I also need to, I want to be very transparent. We've also asked for an executive session on another subject matter today, or I shouldn't say we. It was asked to maybe discuss the the safety or security issues around the express, express bet, is that okay? And I think that Councillor Grossman has touched on a point there that perhaps we haven't noticed an executive session for that purpose. So we would, if we were to decide to go anticipate going into an executive session, we probably haven't noticed that today for that purpose. If we don't deliberate today, I do want to point out that I probably would still feel uncomfortable having a vendor have to address issues in this application. In this application, given quality of the application and the way it was written, if we, if we decide, we have to go to another day. I just wanted to make sure that Todd, if you want to address the issue around, I think it was Commissioner O'Brien who raised the issue around security. And then there was a notion that it extended more widely. We would have to vote on, we'd have to vote to go into executive session if we never decide to go into executive session on that point. Yeah, I think it goes without saying that of course all commission business has to be conducted in public unless there's a very precise reason why we can go into executive session to talk about something privately. And ideally, you will notice those issues on an agenda in accordance with the open meeting law, i.e. giving 48 hours notice, whatever it is you're going to talk about. And of course, as you know, historically, we have always done that. We've been very careful to identify whatever issues we're going to discuss in executive session on an agenda so there is no uncertainty as to what we're talking about. In these cases, these things were not anticipated so they weren't noticed. And for that reason, if we were to do something like that, we would need to be very clear what exactly will be discussed without of course compromising the privacy or confidentiality of the information just to ensure that it meets the requirements that allow you to go into executive session. So as it pertains to the security, if you will, of the kiosks in the garage area, we would have to be able to find that the commission would be discussing the deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect to their too, or that it falls under the exemption in the public records law to the extent we're talking about documents of some sort that discusses security, cybersecurity blueprints and things along those lines. So we would have to flush those issues out a little bit more to make sure we're comfortably within the confines of the reasons you're allowed to go into executive session. So that applies to both of these issues that have come up, whether it's the again, the kiosks or the information related to wind bets. And since we did not identify those on the agenda, we would need to be extra careful to make sure that it's done very precisely. I have a hypothetical mental chair. So I was listening to you earlier, Todd, and you said that if we that we could look at their application when that thing they but we could not make a determination on that given the reasons you just gave could theoretically, if we had a five minute break, if I clicked around G on wind bets application and looked at it quickly in the areas that Commissioner Skinner questions or the subsection she mentioned, is that possible? Am I not allowed to click around and look at it? What what would be in relation to this application? No, you can look at it. There's nothing wrong with that. It was just that Ms. Crumb suggested that the information contained in there is of a nature that it they wouldn't be comfortable discussing it publicly. So you can read it. There's nothing wrong with that.  I apologize. Is that if the information is answered for me by clicking into that quickly? There would be no need for any session, correct? Yeah, certainly. If it is for you, that's that's fine. And although there are other, of course, commissioners. Oh, I'm just this is a hypothetical. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. I think we'd be going into an executive session about a different application on G. I mean, I'm I'm feeling like we are actually complicating these matters and it's prolonging our discussion. But I do feel that to to there's two executive sessions that have been proposed. We typically don't struggle at all when we're thinking about going into executive sessions because we are extremely careful. And and and we know what's before us. So if there's an idea that today, Ms. Crumb could get one of her colleagues who's really representing a category three application to come and present to us. And then it's to present to us in an executive session that we we really haven't posted. I'm not sure I could feel positive to move into that executive session. I'm not sure if I would be a minority. Second, with respect to the other one, we need to discuss the parameters around the public via the security issue. But maybe we try to dispose of the questions that have been presented with respect to that. And I guess Commissioner Maynard, your your your practical solution makes a lot of sense. I'm just trying to figure out how I manage it procedurally here. Madam Chair. Yes, please. Let me ask if I'm being clear with what's happened the last two days. These have been similar questions that have come up. And I'm wondering why we aren't waiting till next week to hear a category three in this instance, as we have suggested in the other two before deliberating. I actually think that three very different scenarios with different legal issues. I think that's where that's where they are being conflated. And I don't I don't feel that they are all the same. Commissioner O'Brien, you started to articulate that.  And so I want to make sure we're looking. Don't let history dictate. You know, we're looking at I look at each application before me in the light of what was presented before, you know, what was presented to me. But commissioners, I think maybe Todd was saying, well, we can include my approaches to look at each application. That doesn't mean we decide we reserve the right to dispose of it at a different time. I think tying it to a category three application. For me, I'm just I don't. I don't see that I see them as separate issues. But Commissioner O'Brien, maybe you can help me. So I mean, I think I'm coming up with a solution that is akin to what Commissioner Hill said, which is we have two issues. One, we have the security issue that I raised that wasn't explicitly noticed in terms of going into executive session to deal with today. We also have one commissioner who's expressed the desire or the need for additional information and connection with references that were made in this application that may require that applicant to talk about sensitive information. That's not appropriate to talk about in the setting. I don't know that necessarily means diving into the substance of those G subsections so much as EVH being able to answer any questions for Commissioner Skinner in that regard. And so what I'm wondering is, can we properly notice an executive session narrowly on those two that goes into next week that allows us to then get all of these voted on and adjudicated next week when we come back on the tether three, not necessarily taking tether three information into this analysis, just from a logistical standpoint, putting them all together, we can properly notice and get through this next week. And I think I can simplify that proposal a little bit. It's not my intention to overcomplicate this issue. I just simply disagree with you, Madam Chair, that my questions are outside the scope of this category one application review. I did ask Commissioner Hill is right. I asked the same questions of the other two applicants. The difference here, as I said, is with, so I'm going to again take PPC off the table because there were other issues outside of the suitability of their retail sports wagering partner. But the difference between today's application and yesterday's is that I am comfortable with Commissioner Maynard's proposal. If I could have 10 minutes to go and review that application, those questions and when that's category three application, I can do that. And the reason why I'm willing to do that today is because it's much more straightforward and much more limited in terms of the information that's missing for me from on course application. I was not willing to go and review MGM FETS application yesterday because, as I said, I felt like I needed to review that application in its entirety in order to get comfortable with deliberating, let me say, on the MGM category one application. So I hope that helps. Without going into executive session provided that I'd be allowed to review that information prior to a deliberation if we are going to deliberate today. I do also understand and respect that Commissioner O'Brien is looking for some outstanding information. And so regardless of how I am willing to move forward, there still may be that outstanding issue on the security discussions. It does help clarify. I think my level of discomfort about the scope is to just require somebody, require an entity that isn't the applicant to have to come forward. I'm just struggling with it. Well, I don't think we'd be requiring because Jackie has offered and in fact, I think she expressed that it would be relatively simple to get someone here. So I don't look at it as a requirement. If I may. I have spoken to my colleague at Winbeth's, I'll text it, and she would be willing to join the conversation if it would be helpful in moving things forward. And she would be available now or is available. And can we, do you want to break first to look at the application, Commissioner Skinner, that they put forward? I think that makes sense because it would potentially, you know, limit the need for the Winbeth colleagues over here. I think that that's very practical. And if it really would help you, then we would be less disruptive to her schedule and others. So why don't we, does everybody agree to allow Commissioner Skinner to take a look and see if her questions are answered? And that would be, you know, how many minutes should we break for Commissioner Skinner? I think 15 minutes should do it. I hope 15 minutes will do it. And, you know, a little respect if you need more time, you can just give me a wave a little through at the 15 minutes, the Indian and other five minutes, and I'll cover you for that, okay, or however long it is. We'll take a break. It's already 308, probably a good time for a break. And then I appreciate you, Ms. Crom, making your colleague and vendor available and should that be necessary. We'll contemplate the other request about the executive session and decide what we can do today on that versus next week. Okay. Any other comments before we break? Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Dave. Also. Thank you. Mr. Hill, I see that I'm not sure if you can hear us, if you're going to video on. I just want to make sure Commissioner Hill, if you can hear us, I'm not sure if you know that you're not on. There we go. Oh, that's that's Councillor Hall and not Commissioner Hill. There he is. Excellent. Okay. So again, we are reconvening Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting number 408. And because we're holding this virtually, we'll do the real call. I'm here. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. And I'm here as well. Here we go. Okay. So we left it that we're going to give our fellow Commissioner Skinner a little bit of time to just do a check on what was a legitimate concern that maybe could be answered in a practical fashion.  So first, I don't think that we need to attempt to go into executive session today or next week around this particular question. I did have an opportunity to review section G of WinBets application. And it does reference some very concerning activity relative to its online sports wagering operations. And I understand that that's not what's in front of us today. But that's where I struggle with trying to understand where we draw the line, what the fine line is. So is that in the, when you say it's very concerning, is it in fact confidential or is it open? I did not go back and look at their application. So I can't imagine what you're referring to right now. So we should all be either understanding it or go reading it ourselves. So I'm going to defer to Todd to answer that question. Madam Chair, if you don't mind. The sections that I believe Commissioner Skinner reviewed were marked by the applicant as confidential. And as we discussed a day or so ago, the legal department has not reviewed all of the documents that were marked as confidential to ensure compliance with the public records law or including the statutory exemption in 23N. But they have been reviewed through that lens by the applicant and so marked. So those are areas that we should not discuss publicly at the moment. And again, I understand that that activity relates to when that's online operations. And that's not what we have at issue today in on course category one application. But it is one entity, right? So that's again where I struggle. So I don't, you know, I understand the importance of allowing wins application to stand on its own. And I was I was I respect that. And so I guess, you know, I'd love to hear from my fellow commissioners and you chair, you know, how we should proceed on this particular question. Commissioner Skinner, I am I express that the process that we were going outside the review of the the application that was before us. I stand by that. Commissioner O'Brien. So I can empathize with where Commissioner Skinner is coming from to some extent, because when you have the same name and the same entity performing in dual functions, it is sometimes difficult to draw the line on where does the vendor become part of the suitability of the applicant and or a qualifying entity in its own right. So I cannot, you know, Commissioner Skinner, in terms of procedurally, whether you feel comfortable on a vote on that question today. But for me, and every application is different. And so for me, and this particular one, the vendor line in this four corners of this application, I feel comfortable with. However, to your point, you know, they cat through questions that we have for people coming up in the next couple of weeks are entirely different. And it's entirely different posture when they come before us in that way. But I also don't want to see any commissioner if you felt like you needed more questions answered that maybe you did feel like an executive session was going to provide to you. I don't want to be anyone that takes that away from you. Yeah. No, that's that. Sorry, Commissioner Maynard. That's where that's where I think I come down. I mean, I just, you know, I'm comforted by the fact that we will have an opportunity to review the Wendat application next week. So I think, you know, with respect to to the application today, you know, given what Jackie indicated earlier in that Encore is ultimately responsible for the provision of the retail sports waving operations. I'm comfortable, you know, with what I have seen in the entirety of Section G. Talking about Section G of this application. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. I just wanted to echo Commissioner O'Brien and say that, you know, it is difficult to divorce some of these applications, but I'm able to do so as to the category one license versus the category three license. And like Commissioner Skinner, we'll have questions when we get to the category three licensee of the category three, but we can I can separate the two in my mind and am comfortable moving forward based solely on the category one application. I think Commissioner Hill is talking to somebody. Commissioner Hill, I was going to ask your opinion. I'll give you a pause on that for now. You can ask away. Okay, thank you. What is your feeling on this? So I I have been very quiet over the last two days because I don't think I have been in agreement with some of my colleagues on qualifiers versus licensees before us. I have looked at the category one applications as just that. I've tried to not bring both three and one into one application. I have sat and listened intently and respectfully to my fellow commissioners because you've brought up some very, very good points. What I feel very strongly about is that what's before us today in regards to WinBat is they are a vendor that is before us today. And that's how I'm looking at this application. And I feel very comfortable as the vendor for E.B.H. that we should move this particular application forward because I do believe that we are looking at a vendor and under our regulations as has been explained to us a few times now, the vendors go before a division of our commission. They don't come up to us. And they do wonderful work. And if there was an issue as a vendor, they would have let us know, I believe, in their report. So that's how I'm looking at our category ones. Understanding that Tuesday and Wednesday, there were some issues brought before us that absolutely need to have some answers, some questions answered. But for today's purposes, Madam Chair, I think we should be able to move forward looking at this as a vendor and not as an applicant in a or putting together a category three applicants in with a category one applicant. Does that answer your question? It helps me a lot, Commissioner Hill, because you've been quiet, but I knew that there were opinions there to be shared. So thank you very much. I want to make sure the voice was captured. Yes. Commissioner Hall. No, Councilor Hall. Another promotion. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. And if I didn't make this clear earlier, then that's, that's my fault. We have not reviewed the vendors that are attached for these new sports functions at this point in IEB. That is a process that is kind of in the terms of the steps, you know, it's category one, category three, and the vendors are coming after. So I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about that. That IEB has not has not done preliminary or full on any of the vendors that have been flagged with respect to the sports wagering, unless we in fact had already reviewed them in the gaming context. So I just want to make sure everybody's okay and understands that piece of it. Understood. Okay, thanks. I appreciate it. Sorry to interrupt you. And that's part of your continuing process. Every time a new vendor is added to a licensee's portfolio, how does it work? You... Right, the licensee would identify the vendor, and then we would go through the scoping process. And then we would then, you know, proceed with the investigation of the vendor. And I think it's good to compartmentalize those for now, because there may be issues and questions about, well, in the sports wagering context, does that come up before the commission or does it stay with IEB? But our practice with the gaming side of the house, so to speak, no pun intended, is that they have gone only up through IEB with respect to suitability. Right. And right now, with respect to our three licensees, IEB is probably reviewing vendor vendor suitability. That's it. Okay, thank you. Yep. So commissioners, I want to be mindful of the fact that in addition to Commissioner Skinner's questions, we also had earlier when we were taking... I think we haven't taken our temperature on G because of this outstanding issue. Am I wrong? So if we could put a pin in that, I want to go back to that. We took a sort of a straw ball on... It might have been Section C, right? Commissioner O'Brien regarding the express that area, which is going to be in the garage, and it will entail 900 square feet and maybe 20-something kiosks. And as I understand, it will be an expansion of the gaming floor that will come before us at a certain point in time. We talked about that, but then we talked about some of the security issues you had. Right. So yeah, so if I can... I think that the way to address that is... I've made it clear that I'm not 100% convinced one way or the other on whether the gaming floor should be expanded to include that. There's an entirely different mechanism that they're going to have to come back in front of us on. So what I would like to ask is for staff to brief me on the conversations that you've had with EVH already around security, and it may be we need an executive session at the time of the request to expand the gaming floor if I have questions of EVH on that. I don't think it needs to hold this up today. I just make that point that my thumbs up on sufficiency of this application has absolutely no bearing on what I'm going to say or vote on when it comes back in front of us procedurally for requests to actually expand and create that space. Commissioner O'Brien, I agree with that process that it could go forward. I would share that. I know that others had expressed concerns about the public safety. So I think what I want to make sure is that all answers will be questioned in the proper forum. Bruce could, of course, get back to you if you wouldn't mind if we can plan on these issues coming up in our full-sum discussion properly in the public or properly in an executive session as available to make sure everybody's comfortable because I know I heard Commissioner Hill say we are many of us. So I want to be cognizant of that. So does that mean that you would be, if we decide to move forward on some kind of a disposition today, we could either attach it as a condition or some clear understanding that when Ms. Crum and team come back in front of us for that request, we would then fully address the security issues and Jackie certainly would be on notice that that would be a paramount concern. Absolutely. Okay. So now back to what we put a pin in, section G. Commissioner Skinner, I think I heard you say that you have concerns but now that you do see it being something that could be satisfied in the category three analysis separate and apart from today's review of the category one application, but I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that was my impression. That's correct. Given the assurances that we got from on board today, I think I am, I know I'm comfortable moving forward and particularly given that the issues that I'm concerned about and I suspect others will be concerned about as well relate to the online sports majoring operations and not the retail operations. Okay. So does that give sort of a that meets expectations? Are you comfortable with meeting or exceeding? Yes, I am. I'm comfortable with meeting. Okay. Commissioner Hill thumbs up. Commissioner Mayter and Commissioner O'Brien. Yep. Yes. Okay. Excellent. So we've gotten through all of the sections and thank you everyone for the flexibility around this process. You know, I think I do think it reflects a lot of thoughtfulness and care and attention to detail, Commissioner Skinner, which I will give you full credit to. And can I say I will give full credit to all of my fellow commissioners as well. But I do appreciate it. I'm glad thankful that Commissioner Mayter came up with a practical solve. We always start with that. But we also know that we've got as I started with a big responsibility about being that rigorous regulator. And yet also fair, transparent and participatory. I think we've accomplished all of that today. With that said, we have in front of us that the agenda does allow for us to go into the process of making a determination, which I've led with perhaps not properly today. Council Grossman in detail. But I think when you first laid out the legal framework, you explained that the guidance for us, well, we've done that high level review of the application, we would have to make some kind of affirmative findings, findings with respect to the factors laid out in our, our regulation commissioners. Is this a process that you would like to pursue now? Are we comfortable pursuing that going on to the next item of the agenda now with the Council Grossman's guidance? Because it is different than what we've done with the other two. But I think we are treating each in their own proper appropriate fashion. That okay.  I've got an agreement. Yes. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. Yes. Yes. All right. Well, let's see how this proceeds. Thank you, Todd, for your guidance. We certainly have engaged in this kind of analysis in the past. So thank you very much. Sure. Well, essentially having found substantial evidence that all of the factors have been satisfied and assuming that you do find that it would benefit the Commonwealth to award this license, it would be helpful just to talk about the section of the regulations that discusses the, let's call them automatic conditions of licensure and then the operation certificate briefly. So, Todd, Todd, are you saying that this is still the process? It's just assuming, because you are going to walk us through each factor, right? I don't think, did I misunderstand? Did you say that? Oh, no, maybe I misunderstood you. Okay. No, we can go through the factors. We should go through each one to make sure, and I think we should vote to make sure that we have substantial evidence, because we haven't talked about meeting that threshold. We've all been comfortable on the high level. I do think you need to walk us through those factors, correct, commissioners? And then, and then the ultimate finding the substantial evidence to benefit the Commonwealth. Yeah, sure. So, we're back into 218, 25CMR 218, this is .065, talks about the standard and the factors. And the, again, the umbrella standard is whether a license award would benefit the Commonwealth. So, that's the ultimate question that you want to answer. In making that decision, you would want to be able to say that there is substantial evidence to support each of the factors that you have gone through extensively this afternoon. And they are, A, the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering. And there are a series of sub-factors that were set out in the regulations as well. They include the applicant's background in sports wagering, the applicant's experience and licensure and other jurisdictions that sports wagering, and a description in the applicant's proposed sports wagering operation or description technical features and operation of the platform as applicable, which is not applicable. Should we pause? Do you, commissioners, and you want to remind us of the standard? I know that you've given us that definition a few times now. Yes. So, this is the substantial evidence standard, which is that quality of evidence. Okay. I should have this memorized at this point in my career. But the definition is that it's as such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. That is the definition of substantial evidence. Commissioners, should we have them run through each factor and then take our vote? Or do you want to do, I mean, go through all of the criteria, or do you want to vote incrementally? It seems like we've reached consensus on the individual criteria. So, maybe if you list them out, unless someone raises a point, it seems like we're all heading in the direction of substantial evidence. Excellent. So, this is for the record. Yep. Thank you. So, B is the economic impact and other benefits to the Commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license, including one, employment opportunities within the Commonwealth, two, the projected revenue from wagering operations and tax revenue to the Commonwealth, three, for category one and two applicants. The applicants proposed plans for construction and capital investments associated with the license award, and four, community engagement. So, that's factor B. Factor C is the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming, including the following. The applicant's responsible gaming policies, two, the applicant's advertising and promotional plans, and three, the applicant's history of demonstrated commitment to responsible gaming. That is factor D. Factor D is a description of the applicant's willingness to foster racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, equity, and inclusion, including the following. One, within the applicant's workforce, two, through the applicant's supplier spend, and three, in the applicant's corporate structure. That is factor D. Factor E is the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation, including one, geofencing, which doesn't apply here. Actually, the second one doesn't apply either. Well, it's not as directly. It's the know your customer measures that does apply. And three, technological expertise and reliability. That is factor E. And factor F is the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers. And just to reiterate, this one is the situation where you apply the clear and convincing standard. And there are two options for you to either issue a, if the standard is met, a durable finding of suitability, or to issue a preliminary finding of suitability. And the sub factors to consider in making that decision are one, whether the applicant can be or has been determined suitable in accordance with two of five CMR. Two, the applicant and all parties and interests to the licensees, integrity, honesty, good character and reputation. Three, the applicant's financial stability, integrity and background. Four, the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain a successful sports major operation. Five, the applicant's history of compliance with gaming or sports majoring licensing requirements and other jurisdictions. And six, whether the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practice. So that is factor F. Factor G is any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion. So those are the factors that you have reviewed here today and the sub factors that are subject. And then the ultimate conclusion is that whether a license award would benefit the common. That's right. Okay, so keeping suitability aside, should we vote on that with respect to substantial evidence? Yeah, I think you could move to find that there is substantial evidence in the record by the application and discussion here today to support each of the factors identified and that the award of the license would benefit the common. And we'll pull out factor F, the suitability piece for now. And before we're to vote, on that, do we need to think about the conditions or any conditions that we would attach to that? Or should we go ahead and vote? And thank you for bearing with me as we move through this process. I think it might be helpful just to refresh everyone's memories as to the conditions.  There are a series of automatic conditions and I'll go through those really quickly for you. Aside from the pre-registration issue that we discussed earlier, I don't have any other notes as to other conditions that you may want to attach. As for the pre-registration issue, there was a question raised as to whether that would be an appropriate subject for a condition or better as a regulation. I might suggest to you that it while it is clearly an important issue and one of great interests, not just here but probably elsewhere, that might be a better subject for regulation of some kind so that we can spend the time to think it through. We don't want to move too quickly on that and that we word it exactly as it should be so we don't make any missteps there. That said, if it is something that there's interest in pursuing as part of a condition, we can spend time to try to get that together. But that was the only standalone condition other than the automatic one so that I had on my list. The automatic conditions if you will are that the operator obtain an operation certificate before conducting any sports wagering and we can talk for a minute about what that entails. That the operator comply with all terms and conditions of its license and operations certificate. That the operator comply with chapter 23 and in all rules and regulations of the commission. That the operator make all required payments to the commission in a timely manner. That the operator maintain its suitability to hold the sports wagering license. And that the operator conducts sports wagering in accordance with its approved system of internal controls consistent with 205CMR and in accordance with its approved house rules in accordance with chapter 23 and section 10A and consistent with 205CMR. I think it might be helpful just to also touch on what goes into obtaining an operation certificate since that is one of the key conditions here. And this is discussed in section 251 of the commission's regulations. And it says essentially in order to obtain that you they have to go through a test period which we can discuss in greater detail later on but that is a prerequisite to this. But they also have to have all of their system of internal controls which include the house rules approved by the commission. They have to provide a current list of all sports wagering employees, sports wagering vendors and non sports wagering vendors. They have to have the facility built of a superior quality and ensure that it complies with all applicable conditions of licensure. A copy of its emergency response plan has to be submitted and we detail what needs to be in there. It has to be filed to the fire department police department of the city of Everett in this case. They have to have a copy of the certificate of occupancy issued by the city of Everett building inspector or commissioner obtained and filed including compliance with the architectural access board regulations and there's some discussion here as to accessibility that's obviously a key component that's generally part of the building permit process and is likely already been satisfied but we will double check that as part of the operation certificate. Compliance and then compliance with any other condition that the commission may impose here. So that's that's what it takes to obtain an operation certificate. So those are the let's call them again automatic conditions that will attach to the award of a category one sports wagering okay so in terms of going forward with the vote we'd want to think about the whether or not we want to attach that condition I'll give my quick opinion I think the the topic around the pre-registration and the loading of the wallets I we did hear pretty clearly that this that it would be an exceptional measure for us to take but I do think it might be one that we want to explore I'm I'm thinking it might be better for us to explore in the regulatory context because if we did go forward with adopting a regulation we'd get input from the public that might help us on that and and I'm I'm also really yielding to the council Grossman's judgment on that so I would be comfortable not having that be an exceptional condition today I don't believe I've heard of another condition except perhaps Commissioner Brown I want to be mindful of the fact that the the public safety we could attach it as a condition but we are going to have it come before us in any case the matter of the the expansion I don't think it's a condition just me stating for the record which I think I've already done the the fact that the approval under 218 has no bearing on our adjudication down the road for the request to expand the gaming floor okay very very helpful thank you and I think we would have could have a motion that combines the the recognition that we've met the standard review both with respect to you know the suitability as well as the other factors if we feel that way again the suitability here if we were to vote on it and vote it and I think this is important with respect to a cat one application the durable suitability decision that reflects what 23 and anticipated if I understand correctly council Grossman I don't know if you want to just remind us again of that absolutely so there again there are two options when it comes well three one you could find them unsuitable but the the two primary options are that they be awarded a durable finding of suitability or a preliminary finding of suitability the durable finding of suitability is designed essentially for any entity that has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant and all of its qualifiers have been found suitable under essentially under chapter 23k but as can be carried over here by clear and convincing evidence and in this case that they have maintained such suitability since the initial finding and that goes up to the present day and so if you are to find that there is such evidence in the record then you can award this applicant a durable finding of suitability which would allow you to just award them the sports wagering operator license as compared to a preliminary finding of suitability in which essentially you are determining that there is further investigation that is required by the IEB to bring back before you so that you can make a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant in each of its qualifiers has demonstrated its ability in that event if an applicant solely gets a preliminary finding of suitability that simply makes them eligible to request a temporary license which would remain in effect if granted until the background investigation is complete and the commission finds that there is clear and convincing evidence of their suitability at which time you could then award the final sports wagering operator license so those are the two essentially two options here before you the durable finding of suitability or the preliminary finding of suitability. Councillor Hall do you want to add in on that you're um I want to get the language right you're you know is it is it the report it's fair that's what you thought it yeah report and suitability on the conclusion of the IEB was it was chaired that the applicant and all of its qualifiers listed in the IEB's executive summary have been found suitable after full investigation and findings of suitability by the commission and that they remain in good standing. Thank you. Councillor Grossman I think this also impacts the fee that the applicant should be paying so my understanding is a durable finding of suitability and they're comfortable with the application submitted they would submit the full five million as opposed to the one million for the temporary license is that right that's exactly right. Other questions now for um General Councillor Grossman or Councillor Hall with respect to the process as we make this we're considering making this decision. Any questions commissioners? Um Commissioner O'Brien I am looking to you um with some with with some empathy I was afraid you were going to say that but with empathy I wanted with all caps empathy um I I think you probably have it but we can get guidance from Councillor Grossman along the way. I mean what I would do in um it's two separate motions just for simplicity sake I think it's just cleaner given the different standard review in the first instance I move that the commission fine that the applicant on core Boston Harbor through its application submitted and as discussed here today has established by substantial evidence and met the criterion set forth in 205 CMR 218.065 subsections a through e and g and further that any awarding of the license of a category one license to the applicant would be in the benefit benefit the Commonwealth. Second can I ask of this question do we I don't think you referenced the conditions do we do that here or is that a third motion point of I could put that on with um so as of now we they have not done the clear the suitability portion yet so we could do it with the suitability portion and then have reference to the statutory conditions do you want to give me a particular site for that time sure it's um I think they attach automatically but it certainly can't or to mention them it's thank you it's section 220.01 I'm sorry 220 what 0.01 220.01 okay okay with that helpful um clarification are there further questions or edits oh did I get a second I'm sorry I second good because I would have been out of order so thank you um so with that clarification any further edits or discussion all right. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. 5-0 on that portion with respect to suitability do I have a motion? Madam Chair I move that the commission find that the applicant on core Boston Harbor be found to have established by its application filing the review by IEB and the discussion here today have established by clear and convincing evidence its suitability consistent with 205 CMR 218.065 subsection F as well as 205 CMR 218.065 F and that any conditions um and subject to a finding of suitability in this connection also reference the obligations of reference under 205 CMR 220.01. Second. Thank you any further questions or edits okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes 5-0. Great well thank you Jackie and thank you Joe it's been a long day um thank you for your patience as we we um made our way through out these issues I appreciate everyone's participation today commissioners do you have anything you want to say other than I know a motion to adjourn Commissioner Skinner. I do actually have something to say I just want to thank um you chair and my fellow commissioners for um the understanding patience respect and deference in allowing each of us the opportunity to be fully heard and supported during these uh past couple of days and I know we're generally good at that um but was particularly notable um this week so thank you also want to thank um our external presenters RSM, GLI um as well as IEB and the rest of the team thank you. Thank you Commissioner Skinner anyone else all right I'll Commissioner Maynard. I just wanted to second Commissioner Skinner and say I think that this is great for the Commonwealth I know we took the vote saying that but I do think it's great for the Commonwealth. Congratulations to Angkor. Thank you so much we can't tell you how excited we are uh I'm very pleased that we built the sportsbook when we did and that we finally get to open it and use it as a sportsbook. We appreciate the dedication from each of you the commissioners as well as the entire staff we know this has been a lot of work a lot of efforts gone into this it's not an easy process and we we very much appreciate it. Well thank you thank you yeah good luck congratulations and congratulations all of us but I I also just want I want to thank the applicant I want to thank you for the thoroughness of your application um but I just also want to thank the entire team in my fellow commissioners um this uh today is an example of why we started with this is a team of excellence and I include each of my fellow commissioners as part of that team so thank you and I'll take a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Second. Congratulations thank you. Commissioner Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. I. And Commissioner Maynard. I. And we will gather tomorrow in another public meeting thanks for all your hard work everyone really appreciate it thank you. Hi. Five zero.


So the current status of USA visas in India, especially B1, B2, C1D and other non-immigrant visas and what's the latest status in H1B and Green Card, this is exactly what we're going to be discussing in today's video, keep on watching. Hi guys, my name is Shachi and welcome back to this channel. In this channel, you'll find a lot of useful videos in the US visa process, so make sure to check them out. Now, a lot of developments have been happening in the US visa, you know, space, especially after the new President Joe Biden has taken over the office. So we will be discussing all of that in this video. And so this video is basically going to help you come up to date with everything in the US visa scene and what is the current status of the same. So let's get started. So let's start with the non-immigrant visas in India. And I think this is where most of the people have their queries. This is where I get maximum DMs about. So the good news is that the non-immigrant visa process in India has finally reopened. So sometime in March last year, that is in March 2020, the embassy is shut because of the coronavirus situation and slowly over the last few months, beginning from Jan end onwards, the embassies in India have started reopening and have started or rather restarted the non-immigrant visa process. So when I say non-immigrant visa, this basically comes to the B1B2 visas, the C1B visas. You know, these are the two main categories. Now, as of now, the current situation is that these appointments are being given very actively from the Delhi embassy. So Delhi embassy is where B1B2 visa appointments have started. It's been, I think, about 20, 25 days since the Delhi embassy reopened for the B1B2 visas and the other embassies like Chennai, Kolkata, etc. are expected to reopen it in the coming weeks. And from whatever experience our clients have been having, we have also seen that people are able to get appointments in the Hyderabad embassy as well. So if you're looking to apply for a B1B2 visa, then you can start the process for yourself. You can start the preparation as well as the application process and keep an eye for Delhi embassy because this is where the maximum chances of getting an appointment are. One thing to keep in mind is that the embassies are still functioning in limited capacity. They still haven't opened their full capacity. So it might take you much longer time to get an appointment. So say that earlier if an appointment was available for next week or two weeks later. Right now, the waiting time is up to a month. So make sure to plan in advance because it might take you this much more time to get an appointment for your B1B2 visas. And as and when the embassies are opening, the updates are being given on the US Embassy Facebook page. So you can follow this page to know the latest status. Or of course you can tune in to this channel and we will be bringing all the updates to you as well. So what is the future of B1B2 visas and C1D visas look like in India? So like I said, right now the Delhi embassy is what is in function. The others are expected to follow suit and of course this depends upon the COVID situation. As of now, from whatever information we have, the embassies are planning to reopen in the next few weeks to their full capacity. But if the coronavirus situation worsens or if there are more sanctions or restrictions that are imposed on travel, then we could see another slowing down of the process when it comes to the embassy functioning and when it comes to the non-immigrant visas, especially the tourist visa. Another thing to keep in mind is that there's a lot of talk and discussion about a vaccination passport. So what does this mean? This essentially means that in the coming months it might become a norm or rather it might become compulsory to have the COVID-19 vaccination in place before you can travel to countries such as the US. And this will be an additional document which will be part of your passport and this is being called the vaccination passport. So no firm rules are in place for this yet but this is something which is on the cards. So if you're planning to make a trip to the US or you know travel in the coming months, make sure that you get your vaccination in place. In India, the vaccination is already undergoing. So make sure that you are registered on the app and as and when your turn comes, be proactive in getting your vaccination in place and keep the documentation for it ready because it might just become an additional documentation which might be required for the visa process. So with these updates regarding the B1, B2 visas and the other non-immigrant visas, the question is what can you do about it right now? So these are the three action steps that you can take right now. First one is to keep track of appointments. So keep track of the appointments in Delhi as well as Hyderabad MSc's to see when you're able to actually get a date. So like I said, the appointment time has now become much longer. So it might take you about a month to get an appointment. So be proactive in booking your appointment dates and make sure that you know you are up to date with the availability schedule. The second thing that you can do right now is to keep your DS160 ready. Now DS160 is that six-page document which is extremely important because this is what the visa officer is going to have in front of him when you go for the interview. So filling this accurately and filling it correctly is very important. So you can use this time to keep your DS160 ready and absolutely perfect and ready to go. So on this channel, we actually have a lot of resources to help you with this. You can check out this video which talks about DS160 mistakes and the things that you need to be really, really careful about. If you need more assistance in filling up DS160, check out this course. So this is a video course which basically will help you in filling your DS160. It's a step-by-step guide wherein I fill the form with you and I take you through all the questions and this will ensure that your DS160 is filled accurately without any errors. The third thing that you can do right now is to prepare for the interview. Now the US visa, B1, B2 interviews and the other non-immigrant visa interviews are totally an interview-based process. It'll be all about how convincing you are about your purpose of visit, about your plans in the US and about your ties to home country. So really preparing well for these answers is extremely important. Again on this channel, we have tons of videos to help you with this. So do check out all of these videos and make sure that you prepare yourself well. And if you need my help in customizing these answers and you know, getting ready for the interview, feel free to book a consultation session with me. The link for that will be in the description box below. So this was about the B1, B2 visas. Next let's talk about the student visa. So student visa processes are on in almost all the embassies in India. Students are able to now get their appointment pretty easily across any US embassy in India. So if you're a student planning your higher education in the US, you need not worry much about appointment booking.  Again, just to be on the safer side, make sure that you do not push it till the last minute. Because sometimes, since the embassies are working in limited capacity, the interview slots might be limited. So again here, make sure that you plan ahead and book your interview dates in advance. And if you need our help in preparing for the interview, check out these videos which talk about the F1 visa process, how to prepare for it and also check out this particular course which is specifically designed for F1 visas. And now let's talk about the H1, B visa. And I think this is where so much has been happening in the last few months. There has been a lot of back and forth. There have been positive developments and not so good developments. But this is what is the current scenario. So Trump had imposed a sanction or rather a ban on issue of new H1, B visas till March 31st, that is March 31st, 2021. And the reason for this was basically to protect American jobs and to give more preference to American citizens. Now, this ban is set to expire on its own on March 31st. And when Joe Biden took over the office, it was kind of expected that he would revoke this ban or revoke this sanction. Now, that hasn't happened and it's right now pretty clear that he's not going to revoke it before March 31st. So now the question essentially comes to that once the ban expires on its own in March 31st, will it be imposed again or will it be totally done away with. So this is, there's a lot of debate regarding this issue and this is what we need to watch out and see what happens. Another important development with respect to H1, B visas is the way the visas are being allocated. So Trump introduced a wage-based system for H1, B instead of a lottery system. So initially the visas were allotted purely on a lottery system and Trump replaced that with a wage-based system, wherein the wage or the salary would be a factor in giving the H1, B visas. And obviously this gave preference to companies who are hiring employers, to companies that were hiring employees at a higher wage or a higher salary. And this is something which will adversely impact the Indian IT companies because a lot of them like TCS and forces hire employees and they go for H1, B visas at a much lower wage scale. So from whatever discussions are going on, it seems like Joe Biden would continue with the wage-based system and the lottery system is something which is going to be done away with. So these developments are on the cards and in the coming weeks, it will be more and more clear how H1, B visas pan out. So there are petitions which are in place now to implement the reforms when it comes to H1, B visas and make the H1, B visa system, you know, more robust and more fair. So how these things pan out, we have to see in the coming weeks. But as of now for the fiscal year 2021, registration for H1, B visas have already begun. So they have released the usual quota of 65,000 H1, B visas for employees and additional 20,000 H1, B visas for people who are going to do their masters in the US. So for 2021, the process is already in place and in the coming few weeks will be more and more clear about the exact guidelines when it comes to H1, B visas. So we're going to be bringing all these updates on this channel, of course. So make sure that you subscribe and stay tuned for that. And in the end, let's talk about the immigration and the green card. So this is where the maximum positive development has been and Joe Biden from his campaign has been very clear that he was pro immigration and these are the first few things that he did when he took over the office. In fact, if you watch the last video of the channel, we talk about all these things in detail. So if you want to get into the details of the new immigration act and you know how exactly immigration and green card situation is going to be dealt with, make sure that you check out this video. But in short to summarize, Joe Biden has removed the ban which was imposed on issue of green card. So Trump again had imposed a ban which said that no new green cards are going to be assured. So Joe Biden on the first day of his office did away with this ban. He has also removed the country-wise quota when it comes to issuing of green cards, which is a huge positive for Indians. Because since the quota lotted to India was small, there was a long waiting time for Indians to get their green card. And in addition, there are more and more positive developments like removing the ban on certain Muslim countries and also allowing families who have been separated for very long to get their visas on priority and so on. So again, if you want to get into the details of the immigration reforms and green card, check out this video and also check out this video by the McBean TV which I will be giving the link in the description box below. So guys, this was a quick update video regarding the status of USA visas in India and also the status of H1B visas and green cards. I hope this has helped you to come up to date with the current situation. And on this channel in the coming few weeks, I have planned lot of videos which will basically help you from the preparation point of view. So these videos will help you prepare for the US visa interview. It will help you prepare with your document checklist, informed filling and so on. So make sure that you subscribe and you press the bell icon so that you don't miss out on any of these updates. If you have any more questions or doubts, feel free to leave them in the comment section below. You can also DM me on Instagram. My Instagram handle is right here. And if you want to book a consultation session with me, it will be a one to one session done on a video call. Do check the link in the description box below. That's all for today. Signing off for now and see you in the next one. Bye.


How did y'all end up saying we gonna just give a car away? We've been talking about it for a long time and then you know We've been watching the raffles and it seemed like some people been setting these raffles up And we just wanted to do one that was just clean and actually see somebody that's a fan or the coach You win this motherfucker man. The tickets ain't between the dollars That's the raffles going on and people been setting them up But this one is legit click the link and get you some tickets so you can win this badass car right here No strings attack. Yeah, we on boss talk one on one Let's get back to the comedy for a second get off the cars. You got enough cars. I'm sick of talking about them Yeah, cuz you only got one two. I got two. Yeah, one. I got one and a half one and a half Yeah, yeah, well plus the one the Cadillac But it's still a car, you know, I'm talking about let the nigga I put them three out and Say man, that's why your show keep going cuz you be ranking just like she naps my run you niggas like to rank when y'all come on My show. Yeah, you're gonna have to hold that down a little bit, please No, do you think that? You really want to come down here race car. You just plan. No, I'm a person to come down Don't massive with you cuz you don't need dump master with you. I will race him I want to ask you this though. Yeah about that car We could talk about that car that y'all giving away cuz I want to win that I need that car you do Talk and be in the conversation How did y'all end up saying we go just give a car away? We've been talking about it for a long time and then you know We've been watching the raffles and it seemed like some people been setting these raffles up And we just wanted to do one that was just clean and actually see somebody that's a fan of the culture When this motherfucker man the tickets ain't between the dollars color man listen man It's dumb as a man. We got a 75 all the way done. Don't we bout to give away man I know that's crazy, man. Did you have a go on that bottom ticket leave a cabin?  So so the When is it September the 10th? Yeah, the 10th like that. So so how long has it been going on for us? How long was the window just like a month? Maybe I think it was gonna be two months Yeah, I seen I think it was core is somebody do that raffle thing Cory shout out to Cory because his raffle actually He'd do some raffles sometime. They actually legit. He actually do that shit, right? But that's the thing about the culture. I feel like on our side.  That's how we do man. We're on boss talk 101 He here he here in this serious now. He in the building money Moses in the building hell. Yeah But yeah, that's the real reason. No, I saw a lot of my faking and doing it and wanted so some shit They could be legit now. Oh, it's nice. Like I he y'all had to trunk. Oh, I made a video about it yesterday Oh You want to give away That oh nice like that let's swap Like y'all put it yeah, go give it away by slick and to shout out to my boys this bus leak Hey, I got to try to see what is what it by getting more shout-outs on boss Because I can't