officially call to order the meeting. I do need to do a roll call given that we are utilizing a virtual platform. So good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. Morning, good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, President. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, I'm here. And good morning, Commissioner Mayer. Morning, Madam Chair, I'm here. Excellent. So we're convening today, public meeting number 393 of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and we're turning first to Chief of our Community Affairs Division, Joe Delaney. Good morning, Joe. Good morning, thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. So today before you, we have the City of Boston Public Safety Grant, which we just awarded back in the spring. And they have asked to repurpose some of the funds in that grant. So the situation there was they had applied for some training funds. And that training was to have taken place in April of 2022, and they did attend that training. But because we didn't complete our work till, you know, towards the end of June, you know, their documents didn't get out to them until that time. And according to the City of Boston, I think, you know, with their internal controls, they said they can't pay for something that happened before the grant was signed. So we don't have any problem with that. We've done that before we reimbursed folks, but it seems to be the City of Boston's internal controls that don't allow that. So what they had asked us to do was they were looking to purchase some ballistic vests for their officers. And that cost is $12,000. So they wanted to take the money that was from that training and put it towards that. And they also needed to supplement that with a little bit of additional money. So they were proposing to take $2,125 out of the overtime that we had authorized to make that hole. We had a couple of conversations with the City and, you know, these are new vests that these folks didn't have vests previously. And, you know, the need was there for, you know, when they do raids and things of that nature in their human trafficking unit, and it certainly seemed an appropriate use for these funds. So we are recommending that that repurposing be allowed. Questions for Chief Domaini, Commissioner O'Brien. I know that the Public Safety Committee are looking at human trafficking. Do you have any thoughts on this? No, I don't have any questions. I think it's a reasonable ask. I'd be in favor of it. Thank you. Any questions for Chief Domaini? Okay, then I do know that you need a vote on this matter. Excuse me, do I have a motion? Certainly, Madam Chair. I moved that the commission approved the city of Boston's request to reallocate funds from its 2022 public safety grant to provide $12,000 for the purchase of ballistic vest carriers as included in the commissioner's packet that I discussed here today. Second. Excellent. Any questions? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. And Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes, five, zero. Thanks to you, Joe, and to your team, Mary and Lily. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope the rest of your meeting goes as smooth as this item did. Thank you. Thank you so much. So as we move on to the next item, which is number three on our agenda, I wish to thank the legislature once again for its confidence in the MGC to stand up this new sports wagering industry here in the Commonwealth. As you'll note today, we will be focusing on the temporary licensing construct established under the new law. I become aware that there may be an expectation that we will vote on this process and lay out a clearer timeline this morning. And as I said in an earlier meeting, any new statute can reveal complexities as you begin to dig into its implementation and its practical consequences. The Commonwealth should be extremely proud of the level of interest sports wagering mobile and digital operators have signaled. Massachusetts, I think we can all really agree is an exciting sports market. However, today you will learn that an outcome of implementing the temporary licensing process under the statute could require a dismantling process of ongoing vetting operations. That could create significant destabilization to this new industry that all wish to see launched with excellence and integrity and in a timely manner. This is a matter that has required considered analysis since we learned more about the landscape of interest through the issuance of our notices of intent. So with that brief introduction to today's agenda, I ask that my fellow commissioners hold comment as we turn to Executive Director Wells and General Counsel Todd Grossman to walk us through the issues presented and we will have ample time to ask questions and comment. So with that, Counselor Grossman, if you wanna turn to item 3A, please. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. Good morning to you and to all who are joining here. We are prepared today as the chair reference to discuss a number of the relevant provisions of the new sports wagering law, which of course has been enacted under General Law Chapter 23N. We'll focus particularly on those provisions that relate to the temporary licensing of sports wagering operators. I've asked today our Deputy General Counsel, Caitlin Monaghan, as well as Attorney Meena Macarius to walk us through the discussion. Mr. Macarius, as he will introduce himself a little bit more precisely is a partner at the law firm Anderson and Krieger, our outside counsel who have provided substantial legal counsel to us over the years and particularly as we embark upon reviewing the new sports wagering law. So without further ado, if I may, I'd like to turn to Ms. Monaghan to lead the discussion. Good morning, everyone. This, I'm gonna share my screen. It'll just take one second. So as General Counsel Grossman just noted, Attorney Macarius and I are going to be speaking with you this morning about the commission's regulation of sports wagering. And in particular, we're going to be talking about the commission's regulatory responsibilities, temporary licensure, and a potential regulatory framework. And before we get into this, I will just let Attorney Macarius introduce himself to the commission. Good morning, everyone, and thank you. My name is Meena Macarius. As Todd and Caitlin mentioned, I have had the pleasure of working with many of the folks on here, but actually not as many of the commissioners, just by way of a little bit background, and this will make sense later why I'm bringing this up. I was part of the team back in 2012, helping stand up the gaming regulations and drafting a lot of those regulations. And as we'll talk about a lot, there are a lot of similarities in the overall structure, obviously some key differences, but there are a lot of similarities in what needs to happen or what we recommend needs to happen for a structure to be set up. So it's nice to be back in front of this group again, and looking forward to saying a little bit more. So Caitlin, I'll hand it back to you. Great, thank you. Okay, so as I just noted, quick overview of what we're going to be speaking about this morning, with regard to the commission's regulatory responsibilities, we're going to walk through the commission's responsibility generally to regulate sports wagering. We're also going to discuss its responsibility to determine eligibility for licensure and its responsibility to deny or revoke the license. We will also discuss the licensee's responsibilities under the new law chapter 23N. We will then walk through the sections of chapter 23N that directly address temporary licensing. And then attorney Macarius is going to address a potential regulatory framework for getting temporary licensing going. So general law chapter 23N assigns responsibility for regulating and overseeing sports wagering to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. In doing so, the statute provides the commission with broad discretion to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the implementation, administration and enforcement of chapter 23N. And what you'll see in this slide are references to section four of chapter 23N, which includes some of that broad delegation of authority, including that the commission shall regulate the conduct of sports wagering under this chapter. The commission shall promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the implementation, administration and enforcement of this chapter. And that the commission may exercise any other powers necessary to effectuate this chapter and the rules and regulations of the commission. So the commission, it's also important to note that the commission was granted the same discretion with regard to gaming under chapter 23K. And we'll of course be able to draw upon the existing regulatory framework for gaming as it begins to regulate sports wagering. And in fact, at the same time that the legislature passed chapter 23N, the legislature also amended chapter 23K. And specifically the legislature amended it to confirm that the commission shall have all powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate its purposes, including, but not limited to the power to regulate and enforce chapter 23N related to sports wagering. And this amendment is important because it makes clear that the authority granted to the commission under chapter 23K also applies to the regulation and enforcement of sports wagering. So in addition to granting the commission broad discretion to create a regulatory framework governing sports wagering, chapter 23N assigns the commission a multitude of specific responsibilities. Among these responsibilities is that the commission shall determine the eligibility of a person to hold or continue to hold a license. How to make such a determination is largely left to the discretion of the commission. But again, the commission may look to its existing gaming regulations or to other states that have regulated sports wagering and setting up its infrastructure. The commission also has the discretion to deny or revoke licenses. And this is set out in section nine as you'll see on the slide. In per section nine, the commission may deny a license where an entity has not met the requirements of chapter 23N or feels to meet certain standards. So for instance, the commission may deny a license to an entity that has made a false statement or that has not demonstrated financial responsibility. And finally, as attorney Macarius will discuss later, licensees must both be licensed by the commission and comply with the rules and regulations of the commission prior to engaging in any activity in connection with sports wagering. And so with the general and specific responsibilities we just discussed in mind, we turn to the matter of temporary licensure. Temporary licensure is directly addressed in chapter 23N section 6C, which we'll walk through momentarily. And in determining how to regulate temporary licensure, the commission must consider both the specific requirements set out in that section and the commission's overarching responsibility to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the implementation, administration and enforcement of the chapter. So on the slide, you'll see the first section of chapter 6C that discusses temporary licensure directly. And it states that a qualified gaming entity, which is a defined term that we can discuss if you'd like, may submit to the commission a request for a temporary license for the immediate commencement of sports wagering operations. Such requests shall include an initial licensing fee of $1 million payable to the commission. Section two or subsection two states that upon receiving a request for a temporary license, the executive director of the commission shall review the request. If the executive director determines that the entity requesting the temporary license is a qualified gaming entity and has paid the sports wagering initial licensing fee pursuant to paragraph one, the commission shall authorize the qualified gaming entity to conduct sports wagering for a period of one year under temporary license, or until a final determination of its operator license application is made. And then finally, the third section that directly addresses temporary licensure is section 6C3. And it states that all sports wagering conducted under authority of a temporary license shall comply with the house rules adopted under section 10. Section 10 requires that an entity seeking to engage in sports wagering in the Commonwealth submit house rules to the commission. The commission must then review and approve the entity's house rules before the entity may engage in sports wagering. It will be up to the commission to regulate the procedure by which temporary licenses are granted and the underlying regulations that must be in place before a temporary license maybe a temporary licensee may begin engaging in sports wagering. I will now turn the presentation over to attorney Macarius who will discuss a potential regulatory framework for temporary licensure. Thank you and attorney Monha, if you don't mind just continuing to manage the slides I appreciate that. Well damn. So as discussed, the key here is that no entity can receive, can begin sports wagering without a license from the commission and without a license that's in accordance with both the chapter, chapter 23N and the rules and regulations of the commission. So as I mentioned, thinking about what has been the commission's practice both in gaming and racing as well as what other states have done around sports wagering. We have been thinking about this and would recommend thinking about this as sort of three big buckets of regulations that you might want to have in place to support temporary licensing. I'll mention at the outset these are probably the same three buckets in a sense that would be needed for operator licenses but this is just thinking about in the temporary license context for now. And so just as an overview the three are temporary licensing process. How are the temporary license requesters going to make requests and how is the commission including the bureau and anybody else who needs to be reviewing going to act on those requests. Once a temporary licensee receives a license and there will need to be operational rules on how they operate. These range from everything. Accounting protocols, responsible gaming, et cetera, we'll get to that in a second. And then lastly, how to hold licensees accountable if they don't follow those rules once licensed. So the temporary licensing process. Again, this would mirror the existing license process already carried out by the commission with some notable exceptions we can get into but obviously there is a need for some way to begin the process for applicants or requesters to submit their request to the commission to be temporarily licensed. The content and form of the request has traditionally for the commission been in regulations we recommend something there too. It doesn't need every word of the form. There's a question that came up last week but it might be a recommendation is to have that laid out clearly. Who needs to be licensed and who needs to qualify? As you know, in the gaming context, a lot of the actual review is of the folks running entities and involved in the process to ensure safety and security of the process. And so the regulations we would recommend would lay out who that is and the standards by which to be qualified which would tie back to the statute. Then there needs to be an explanation of the review process. How is the commission going to make those decisions? And finally the issuance and form of licenses. In some ways that sounds like a lot but I think if you look back, it actually ends up taking up under 10 regulations total and that was in the gaming side. So in any event that is a high level framework of what that might look like. Assuming that you then have licenses issued, the second tranche of regulatory controls are these operational requirements. And again, these mirror the one 205, 133 to 151 sections of the existing gaming regulations. They are also something you would see in sports way during regulations in other states. They include a few things that I know were raised, a lot of which have already been raised. One is accounting procedures and internal controls. Another is the house rules that attorney Monahan spoke about. A third which I know is a key focus for the commission is responsible gaming. And 23N speaks to that as does 23K and that would be something you could address in this round. Technology certification security, obviously with sports wagering, this takes on a special importance but there are models already for how the commission does this with respect to technology issues in the gaming side. Tax remittance, how the money collected by sports wagering operators or temporary licensees flows back to the Commonwealth. Licensing and then finally, licensing of employees and vendors who may be offering services or integral to the operation here. Lastly, the third tranche is what happens if folks don't comply with those. So the good news about this is that not only mirrors 205 and I apologize, I think that's my type of there, should say 100, it's a 205 CMR 100 series. Not only does it mirror what's in there now, it probably can be accomplished or could be accomplished in large part with clarification of the commission's authority includes sports wagering. And so a lot of the same powers, for instance, for the bureau to investigate complaints to subpoena witnesses, et cetera, to take disciplinary action, some of which comes from 23N, some of which is already in 23K. And finally, the interactions of other agencies, law enforcement, et cetera. So those are sort of the three big tranches that I would be thinking about or would recommend sort of breaking the framework into in order to stand up a temporary licensing. But as I said, there's a lot of this that would be true for both temporary and operator license. So I'll stop sharing. And Chair Juddstein, we will be here to answer questions at whatever time you think is appropriate. Is this the conclusion of your piece? Yes, this is the conclusion of sections 3A and B of the agenda. Sorry, A, not for B. 3A and B, Chair. We put them together into this presentation. I think that probably we have some, I thought that there was gonna be a little bit more fleshing out of some of the considerations, particularly around the tech issues. I do hear, Amina, thank you so much. It is, of course, they're so appreciative of your work and your history with the Gaming Commission. So in terms of the walking through the statute, I see that, for instance, on technology, Executive Director Wells, I thought we might get a little bit more of a nuanced discussion around that. So before we go into any further discussion from the team, let's pause. Commissioner, it's based on what we've heard from our legal team today. Do you have questions? Michelle, Brian? Yeah, I don't have questions so much as sort of comments on the analysis. I've been doing my own, being an attorney, although not in this function, obviously on the board, on the commission. And I had made the scene notations that they had. There were a couple others that I also noted in terms of the interplay of 23K and 23N. And when you're looking at 23N in particular, also looking at, I believe it's 5B. So we talked a lot about 5A in your presentation, but it would seem that 5B also is relevant to the conversation in terms of needing to grant an operator's license, because it would seem that even under the temporary license scheme in the statute, that person would be an operator. Section 21 makes clear that only operators can exercise sports or adoring without committing a criminal offense. So I wondered also about 10B, because it talks about house rules, and you guys have focused on 10A, it would also seem that 10B is relevant to the analysis, which also talks about operators posting the house rules plus whatever else we use a commission mandate that they post. So I'm wondering if maybe a little more conversation about how building on what you said already that even in the temporary license structure, whoever that person or entity is also has to be an operator and qualify under the requirements of operator under 23K, 23N. Kaitlyn? Yes, so the statute uses various terminology. As you know, it talks about temporary licensees, it talks about operators, and it talks about licensees more generally. I think it is likely that not, it's a little bit hard to distinguish sometimes. I think there's absolutely discretion for the commission to determine what operator requirements it believes temporary licensees should also abide by, but I don't think it's necessarily required that every requirement of an operator also applies to a temporary licensee. I hope I said that clearly. I think the commission may choose again to say these are requirements we believe are important before you can stand up a sportsway during operation, but it's not necessarily required. Right, so I guess what struck me though is the reference in 5B and 21 to operators. So if you're not an operator, you cannot do this lawfully. So to me, there is some level of requirement for operators that we actually not only discretionary have, but I think we have a mandate to do that as part of launching this and building this out. That's my perspective on this. I think I might add that we might have that discretion through the construct that Mina and Caitlin just outlined through the temporary licensure process. I do think the definitions could be confusing. So when I see the term operator, Commissioner O'Brien, I've attached that to those that have an operator's license versus those that have a temporary license. The term generally of operating, I understand. And so I agree with you, but perhaps we could do it through the construct of operating under a temporary license and distinguishing that from the operator licenses. That's the only way I've been able to put my head around this. And again, wearing an unfortunate legal history cap that I'm quite pleased to discuss at any moment. I guess I view the statutory analysis as being a little more forceful on the necessity for us to dive into operator requirements in the temporary license setting. I see. Okay, other comments?  Thank you. My comments are more general, but they're definitely in line with Commissioner O'Brien's. I almost feel like this discussion is entirely premature around the temporary licenses, given that a temporary license operator cannot engage as force-wadering until we have those operational requirements in place, particularly the house rules, the technical standards. So I don't see the utility of even issuing a temporary license if we don't even have a process in place right now. And I know it's still up for discussion, but we don't have a process in place for creating a house rules model. I think that happened first. Commissioner Skinner, I think if I could just pause, I think today is the day that we're being educated around the temporary licensure process. And so I think we're really starting with the foundation and the discussion. And Karen, that does beg the question that I was seeking that we had hoped that perhaps we could flesh out some of the requirements that Commissioner Skinner is looking to. Yes, and I can address that if that's helpful. Yeah, I can just wrap up. And I know there's this question about which should come first. I'm more in the camp of our operational requirements should be set forth first before we get into a temporary license discussion, really. But that's where we are today. And I understand that. In fact, we are here today to talk about the temporary licensure process. And I think, Caitlin, you can correct me.  So I think it's all part of today's discussion. Meena, maybe you can help me out and we'll turn to Karen for some more nuance. Sure, and Caitlin, tell me if you have anything to add to this, but certainly. Yeah, the idea would be that because of those operational requirements, our recommendation is they need to be in place before anyone operates. And I think that's what commissioners or Brian and Skinner are also saying. Those would be, when I say they're the second tranche or only the second tranche keeping in mind that as applications might come in, they will need a way to be reviewed by the bureau and the commission. But similar to gaming with obviously a different timeline, but with similar to gaming, there is a step between being licensed and being able to actually operate sports wagering. And I absolutely personally agree, would be my personal view that you would want that in place. You wouldn't want someone being able to operate without knowing the rules of the road. And I think the only thing I'd add here is that these processes can proceed on parallel tracks. So the commission can consider the process it wants to move forward with for temporary licensing and that procedure as Meena addressed, while also starting to stand up the operator, the regulations needed for operation. And so hopefully at the end, there's not too big of a difference between when the licenses are granted and when actual operation can begin. I see you nodding, Commissioner Brian. Is that giving you a little bit more of a level of comfort? My iPad is being fidgety today. No, I've had this and I've had this conversation with Executive Director Wells too in terms of my interpretation of the statute. And when you draw parallels back to the casinos in particular, and I remember the wind opening, staying there that night, there is a distinction between a license and a certificate of operation. And I don't think, and I think that's present in this statute too. And so I think my only comment was more, I think there's a level of discretion that I think everyone's agreed upon. And I find it to be a little more forceful than just discretion, but I think we're all ending in the same place on that. Mr. Skinner. No, I agree. I'm happy to hear Caitlin talk about a parallel process. In fact, one of my questions was what kind of alignment can we build into all three of the different sections that Attorney Macarius outlined for us? Karen, do you wanna elaborate? Yeah, so I think the chair's comment about a little more detail about sort of tech requirements is really helpful both for the commission as an agency and a board to understand it, also for the public and the operators to understand. Within the industry, best practices dictate that there needs to be a sort of a technical assurance component before things go live. Particularly in the mobile set session, the mobile operations, the technical aspect of sports wagering is enormous. So there are certain things that need to happen to ensure the integrity of those operations which is core to our function as regulators. So I can just go through some of those. So there's a little bit of an understanding of what it takes to actually be comfortable that a mobile operation or even a retail operation can go forward from the technical side. So one of the standard protocols, and we've talked about this in public a little bit, is that the commission would set up technical standards by regulation. We've talked about that and we talked about working on getting some consultants to help us set those up and to make sure that those standards are in compliance with Massachusetts law. So we've talked about what are called the GLI standards, GLI 33 and those kinds of standards. And the commission has already indicated a direction to the staff to utilize those standards as a guide for what we wanna do in Massachusetts. So that's incredibly helpful. The commission did that because that really puts us ahead of the game right now. But there, and the process would be the commission sets up those regulations and then any operator, their platform would need to comply with those regulations and make sure they're doing what they're supposed to do. And the set up that the commission has approved is that these potential licensees would need to contract with a certified independent test lab. So a contract that would enable them to get their platform tested to make sure that they're in compliance with Massachusetts regulations. And the commission did indicate at the last meeting they would be comfortable on the sort of the temper and a temporary basis. They have something that complies with a reasonable GLI standard that's comparable to Massachusetts in another state. They could start with that and then say within 30 days have the GLI letter we call it where they're indicating they're in compliance with Massachusetts. So that regulation is going to be coming before you. So that is the overall structure of the technical testing of the platform. But there are also other things that need to happen with respect to technical testing and making sure we're in compliance. For example, geofencing is critical to Massachusetts and in other states because they're only allowed to have mobile gaming or mobile sports wager within the boundaries of Massachusetts. So these companies, usually they contract it out but they have to have a mechanism in place that'll be able to tell where the vet is being placed. And if the vet is being placed in New York for a Massachusetts platform, they can't take that vet. So they have to be in compliance with the requirements from Massachusetts. Another aspect we really want to be mindful of particularly where we have spoken about this at the round table, issues of responsible gaming have historically been very important to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission as indicated this week that continues to be the case. If there are requirements on any of these mobile platforms that there be responsible gaming components, those need to be tested to make sure they work and make sure that they're in compliance with Massachusetts directives. There are also internal controls that relate to not only sports wagering in a mobile arena but also in the retail arena. Make sure those things are being applied with and will have teams reviewing those and for sports wagering with respect to the sports books at the casinos and ultimately the simulcast facilities. There's the testing of the kiosk which is the same as we would do with the testing of the slot machines that we normally do for any kind of technology that's used for gambling. So I think that's just a bit of a snapshot. We can have more information for the commission as we proceed but it's important to note there's a lot that goes on on the tech side with respect to sports wagering. And it's critically important that it be done right and that it be confirmed before the operator is allowed to flip the switch and start taking consumers money from Massachusetts. Is that helpful, Madam Chair? Yes, and I'll turn to my fellow commission one second but I think I just want to emphasize I believe I heard you say this is understood to be the acceptable expectations and model for temporary licensure as well as of course any kind of full operating license process down the road across the country. And then I'll turn to Commissioner Hill. I also would like to turn back to you Executive Director Wells too. And I see that Director Lilios is here that there's also the expectation of eligibility, suitability. If you could go through that in the context of a temporary licensure process would be helpful. Commissioner Hill. I have no comments or any questions at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. And Commissioner Maynard, are you all set for right now? I'd seen that Brad had turned on his video. Commissioner Maynard? Okay, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner O'Brien with respect to the tech requirements from a high level outline. Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner O'Brien, you all set? No, I'm all set. I've had conversations about the complexities on that. I'm good. Okay, excellent. I'm also good, Madam Chair. And Commissioner O'Brien, just a reminder that if there's anything you've learned with respect to your conversations with Executive Director Wells I'm all ears if you can help. We always, this is our only opportunity to exchange information. So please share. No, other than to say, Madam Chair and I'm sure I'm not the only one that's had this conversation that it would be helpful, I think for all five of us to be able to hear in greater detail the technical requirements of launching particularly in the mobile applications. And so that's something that I think as we work forward on our agendas that's absolutely something we're gonna wanna put on there. Excellent. And we'll be able to turn to Katrina for that technical help. Executive Director Wells, thank you. Absolutely. Okay, so at this time again to elaborate on the types of considerations that it's important for the commissioner to understand I'm all ears. Also, how about to understand even in a temporary licensing construct there are just expectations that are standard also with respect to suitability. Thank you. Are you here for me or Caitlin? I'm not quite sure where. I'm sorry, Executive Director Wells if you could elaborate, thanks. Yeah, I think that along those same lines about what is commonly expected within the industry. I don't think that there is a doubt that there must be some kind of suitability requirement to ensure the integrity of operations in Massachusetts. Now we see from the statute that there is this directive regarding temporary licensure. So clearly, it's different from 23K. When we implemented 23K, there was no such directive. And you may recall the commission did all of the full suitability investigations before even going to what we call the RFA-2 process or the competitive process. It's different here. So we're not operating in the same construct. And I know Director Lilios is on as well and they wanna chime in on that as well. But in the way I look at it, we have had a model that we've used in gaming where for primary vendors which are the gaming equipment providers, we have utilized a temporary process for the suitability. So that there is a level of comfort that operators in the vendor work realm could go forward and they could sell the equipment and do all that. And we had some authority and there was a comfort level that this was not some sort of bad operator that would pose a danger to the industry or individual that are patrons in the Commonwealth. So I think the thinking is how do we use that construct and apply it to the temporary license process in Massachusetts? And I believe the legal team has been doing some analysis seeing that, okay, how can we fit that in there? So it all matches up, but there's some comfort level. But we also recognize the temporary license parameters where we may not have nine months to do full suitability investigations on all the potential operators before launch. Is that helpful? And ultimately all the commissioners would be weighing in on that level. She's lost her life. This keeps happening together. The magic hand never happens anymore. Today, of course. No, but all the commissioners would be weighing in on that level of suitability. I think we all understand that. Exactly. Commissioners, questions for Karen on this very high level. It's to a truncated some sort of suitability process that we're familiar with under some of our current operations. Okay, Director Lillios, did you want to weigh in? Are you all set? Just to sort of reiterate and expand just a little bit on what Karen said that we do currently use a process for temporary or provisional licensure for not only the primary vendors, but also the secondary vendors, also the key employees and the gaming employees. And we have a temporary, what we call an interim process for approving rate transactions as well. And those involve not only a review of a transaction, but also a truncated suitability review of those high level casino qualifiers. I know that process is very, very helpful to the operators because it is intended to balance their operational needs with the need for a view of for integrity purposes. And it's a risk-based approach that we utilize for all of our investigations, depending on the level of risk of the company or the employee, we develop the criteria accordingly and we will be prepared to have those criteria-based discussions with you moving forward. That's very helpful, Loretta. Thank you. Okay, Karen, are there other considerations that we wanna touch on? And again, justice on the front and of 23 and temporary licensing processes outlined by both A&K and our own legal department this morning. Karen? Yeah, so I think that going back to the slide that the legal department put up things like internal controls. I think responsible gaming measures are critical because the Massachusetts Gaming Commission is so focused on that and protecting vulnerable individuals in the Commonwealth. I think that beyond that, we obviously have the house rules issue which has already been discussed here. So all these things need to be in place before even a temporary licensee could commence operations. As we go through what needs to be done, we also have to differentiate mobile operations versus retail. I know that our gaming agents have already been working closely with the casino licensees on their sports book where it's gonna be located, what they're planning on doing. There would need to be an approval process for how they're setting things up, cash transactions similar to what we have in the casino or any time you're having wagering or dealing with cash and money and you wanna make sure that these processes are protected and that's why we have very strict internal controls required for casino licensees and we would want the same thing for sports wagering. So there is a lot that needs to happen. I think we have the staff members that have the ability to do this and do this quickly but we just have to remember there are certain protections that need to be in place and this is why you have regulated sports wagering as opposed to just yeah, anybody can do whatever they want. It's important and it's really important in the long run to make sure that the public has confidence in the operations in Massachusetts. I see, Commissioner Hill, you're nodding. Any questions anyone has at this juncture? And we can circle back. I think this is obviously a very conversation of separate subcarts under agenda but they are all intersected. So we can go back to our initial thoughts, commissioners. So then if there aren't any comments and Karen, just one clarification with respect to the temporary licensing process you did touch on chaos and matters related to in person betting, a clarification, the temporary licensing process under the statute is limited to mobile digital operators, correct? No, I think that all of them can get temporary licensure. However, there is a specific provision that we were talking about where the, I think it was at six C, that talks about the process for the mobile. So you're correct there. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Yes. All right. In terms of further considerations I think we're all set. We'll go on to receive them. Okay, that discussion that really is limited to the digital mobile online operators. We haven't decided which title to give them but the statute does say mobile slash digital platforms. Right. Yes. And as I begin my presentation on this issue I'm going to use the term untethered to mean those category three licensees or the mobile operators, the digital operators that are not tied to either a category one or a category two license. It's really important to note that there are different types of category three licenses. And so for the purposes of this conversation when I say untethered I'm referring to ones that are basically operating independently. So as we've reviewed the statute and reviewed potential of the temporary licensure and how that's going to look in operations we've identified that there are significant potential impacts from implementing temporary licensure for sports wagering particularly where you have the approach of allowing temporary licensure before final determinations are made to award these operator licenses for category three licenses not tethered to category one or category two licensee. As you are aware under 23N section B pardon me, six B three the commission shall issue no more than seven category three licenses not connected to category one or a category two license. Notably there is no such explicit cap under the temporary license language which the legal department just reviewed for you under 23N section six C. So this structure and this disconnect proposes complications for both the regulator and the licensee themselves. And it also presents consumer protection concerns for the public. And before the commission undergoes any kind of decision I think it's appropriate that there is some discussion about what this potentially means for the public. So the gaming commission as you know, requested a notice of intent from parties interested in the Massachusetts sports wagering license. We received responses from entities seeking category one category two and category three licenses. We had a robust response from potential category three applicants. So that indicates that the competition for these non-tethered category three licenses is expected to be significant. So based on our calculations of the numbers of slots the numbers of NOIs that we received it's possible that we're looking at no less than 30 entities competing for the seven ultimate untethered category three operator licenses. So operators are required to pay $1 million for a temporary license as Caitlin indicated. Now for those fortunate applicants that end up getting one of the up to seven and I wanna make sure it's clear the commission's not required to give out seven licenses that's simply the cap. So they could give out fewer than seven licenses. So once the if a applicant who has a temporary license is fortunate enough to get one of the permanent that one million can be credited to the $5 million license fee. However, for the vast majority of applicants there is no mechanism to receive any of that $1 million back. And then perhaps a greater import for those companies that do enter the temporary license pool as a mobile operator and do not advance to getting a full license as many of 76% of those are gonna be required to shut down their operations in Massachusetts once the commission makes that final determination of the up to seven untethered licenses. So further it's anticipated and we've been working very diligently on a parallel track. So it's not as if for full licensure it's not as if we're just gonna work on the temporary and then once that's all done and everyone's got then we're gonna start working on the full licensure. We're going full force working on a parallel track. So that means that any temporary license may only be valid for a short period of time well even well under a year. So this structure is obviously problematic for several reasons. The commission is going to need under this potential structure to set up a regulatory process for the shutdown of the operators that do not receive a full operator license. We have obvious concerns about consumer protections during the course of this broad shutdown aside from the inevitable confusion in the marketplace that will occur when these platforms cease their operations we expect there's gonna be a multitude of questions that must be addressed. And in my memo for the commission I have just a number of examples. I'll read some of those just so there's an understanding of the type of things that the commission is gonna need to grapple with and I expect there will be more. This is just a sampling. So for example, what happens to the money in a consumer's account? How can we assure it is properly returned? If there are potentially 23 operators that need to shut down and Jane Smith has money in an account with one of these operators and one day the operation shuts down. How do we make sure that Jane Smith gets her money back especially once they're no longer licensed and the commission doesn't have that kind of regulatory authority that they have over a licensing. Another question was what happens to a wage and it's been placed for a future bet when the operator was shut down before the event occurs? So someone in November places a bet for the Superbowl or for something from March Madness and then the operator needs to shut down before then what happens to that future bet? How is that rectified? How do companies ensure that their patrons are aware of the risk that their preferred betting platform may be shut down within a short period of time? It's gonna be very important that the public is aware of this potential occurrence and that they may make informed decisions when they're putting out their betting dollars. Another question, should companies be required to have some sort of bond or insurance to make sure they can pay off all their wagers in the event of a shutdown? You have to look at the business model of some of these companies. If they're leveraging current bets versus future bets and all that, how do we make sure that they don't go bankrupt, they don't not pay their patrons on money that is owed? Another question, what happens to the operator's patrons list? So if we have, say, hypothetically 30 of these untethered operators working in Massachusetts, does the commission have some kind of regulatory concern over what happens to the patrons patron list that the operators hold? That's obviously a very valuable commodity. Another question, what happens to the financial and personal information of patrons after a shutdown? Always concerned about personally identifiable information, bank account information, anything that they have, we wanna make sure that that's protected to protect the Massachusetts consumer. And then finally, as I alluded to before, a larger question of what authority, if any, does the regulator have over the operator once the commission makes the determination that the operator will not receive a full operator license? What recourse does the regulator have to protect customers who have complaints during or after the shutdown? What is gonna be that mask mechanism? So this is obviously quite complicated. And this is one of the reasons that we have been working diligently behind the scenes to see, okay, what are the options for the commission? What can we do? And that's why we're looking at the statute, looking at other jurisdictions. It certainly would be beneficial to hear from the prospective applicants on this issue as the commission makes decisions on the best way to proceed. I'll defer to the chair on how to discuss that. I think that might be on later in the agenda for the discussion of how to run the meeting next week. The staff right now, we're not aware of any other jurisdiction that has dealt with this potential structure. So given this novel landscape, we do not have the benefit of the experience of how other jurisdictions have navigated this complex issue. So I will note, if there is some jurisdiction out there that has done that, that we are unaware, we welcome that information. So I have put in the memo that's in the packet, the MGC comments, email MGCcommentsatmasksgaming.gov. So if any member of the public and interested party, the lawyers that are interested in this analysis, if anyone is aware of the situation where a jurisdiction had to do some sort of massive shutdown of operations, or at least a partial shutdown of operations and they can direct us to that jurisdiction, that would be most welcome. We are trying to figure out best practices here and we certainly would welcome any input. So as we move forward, we'll need to work to anticipate any problems that may arise, particularly that impact the protection of Massachusetts consumers and the confidence that the public is going to have in the integrity of sports wagering in Massachusetts. So this is the significant issue that we have been aware of and dealing with since August 1st, when we received the legislation, what is the best way to deal with this and you're just bringing this to the commission and in public settings so that you can have some more discussion and figure out what would be helpful to you to navigate this issue. So I'll pause there. There are some related issues that we have identified on the agenda, the simultaneous versus staggered launch. I can get into that a little bit more. And then, as we've mentioned, there is a contemporaneous process for a full operator license, including a competitive process. So I just wanted to note those things are on the agenda. I can get a little more into the staggered versus the simultaneous launch issue, but I think maybe pause here for commission input. I think we should pause. And then again, you didn't touch on the last matter, but let's pause on staggered. Commissioner O'Brien, actually, Commissioner Hill, I think you were muted before me. I would always yield to my friend. Go ahead. In terms of the temporary licensure conversation and how we deal with it, I think part of the reason I was bringing up, in my view, the interplay of the operator's license and the portions of the statute that require an operator's license to me and statutory interpretation says you have to read statutes holistically. We had this conversation in Monday, about 23K and 128 A&C interplay. You have the same interplay here. And in the very next subsection of section six, D, it talks about prioritizing an operator's license that commission shall commence an investigation into the suitability of the applicant. So I want to throw that out in terms of, in addition to what I said earlier, when we talked about the general framework, in terms of who is also an operator, and in my view, anyone lawfully conducting sports radring is also an operator. There's a process where that temporary licensure could come into play in the broader context of the operator licensing that needs to commence prior to the issuance of that operator certificate, but does not need to complete. So there could be harmony between those in this process through our rules and regulations. I think we have the authority to do that. Now, there are some other concerns that you've raised, Director Wells too, in terms of, you know, these are all discretionary. The seven untethered are discretionary. That number could be zero. And then you have up to 30 functioning in a market that we would then have to dismantle, like you said, if we don't come up with the proper rules to address it in advance. And how do you get that back in the box? That is something that absolutely, to me we talked about emergency regulations, et cetera. I mean, to me, that is one of the ones that I would do first is sort of what is the worst case scenario and how do we protect the public from that worst case scenario? So those are my thoughts on these. I cannot, to use your word, untethering. I don't untether temporary from operational licenses. I don't think we as a commission have to in our ability to interpret the statute. And then I would yield back to Commissioner Hill. So my only question is, I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Director, did you have any reaction tonight? Are you all set? Correct. I just want to make sure, again, I might be in this understanding. Is that how you were using the term untethered? No, I think Eileen was using it in a different context, just capturing the word. I was trying to be creative. I wonder, I want to make sure that we're all in the same level of data. I'm following you, Commissioner Hill, excuse me. So here's an issue I think could happen and I just want my friends in the legal world to help me understand this. But let's say we give out temporary licenses, we give out 23, now we have to get it down to seven. Is it possible and could this happen? We start the industry, one of those 23 or 30 are not happy that they weren't given one of those seven. Could they then go to court and put a stay on the entire industry as we try and figure this out? Because my fear is we start the industry, then all of a sudden somebody isn't happy because he went down to seven, they go to court and they say, this isn't right, what just happened. And they asked the court to put a stay on the entire industry. Is that possible that that could happen? I would say that you can always go to court, you can file any claim whether that is determined to be a valid claim is a different question and would be, you'd have to look at the facts in particular, but I do not believe that there would be a strong claim that reducing the number of licensees from 20 something, 30 something to seven pursuant to the statute would be a particularly strong claim. I don't think I'm asking the question going from 23 to seven. I'm asking if somebody got a temporary license and then all of a sudden they weren't allowed to do business in Massachusetts, could they then go to court and ask for a stay of the whole industry until a court ruled? They could certainly ask for it, but I don't think it would be a strong claim. Okay. Just to supplement that, they would have to demonstrate a likelihood of success based upon their argument. And we would likely have ensured that whatever we do is in conformance with the law. So hopefully people would not have any likelihood of success. But yes, there's no way we can ever stop someone from doing it. So Commissioner Hill perhaps your point is that it could be just further disruption. Is that what you're getting? Yeah. Yeah. And to Commissioner Hill's point, you also never know what kind of claim someone may file and that someone may come up with something creative that we have not anticipated. You just never know. Commissioner's another question or comment. This is the fact of Director Wells memorandum and discussion on item C. Richard Skinner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like us to stay as far away from a scenario where we're closing down or shutting off a sports wagering operator. And I'm interested in kind of exploring what legal authority the commission has in limiting the attempt of licenses to seven. I don't know if we've explored that adequately. I think that just given the general authority of the commission in the statute 23K, 23N, as well as our regulations, I mean, is there room to interpret that authority to allow the commission to limit the issuance of temporary licenses to seven? Particularly where we're talking about potentially shutting down an operator. Should we pause on that question? Commissioner Skinner? Sure, we can. Do you need to elaborate on it? So that's presented to the legal, well, they're a legal team in A&K and I do wanna know that we also have Lon Povich from A&K here again. Mr. Povich, thank you for appearing today. Reactions to Commissioner Skinner's question. Councillor Grossman. I think that's of course an excellent question. I think one of the threshold questions that needs to be looked at in order to be able to answer that question is how the commission views the language in 23N that discusses temporary licensure and what the purpose of that actually is. We of course need to make sure that we don't read the provision out of the law. So we need to establish what the purpose of it is because in order to limit the number of temporary licenses to seven, one would necessarily need to undertake a competitive process of some sort. And we need to just ensure that all of the provisions of the law are read in harmony. So of course, a competitive licensing process is a lengthier process than one in which anyone who qualifies under certain provisions of the law would gain access to the license. So I think before we can really answer that question we just need to ensure we understand where the commission comes down on the purpose of the temporary licensing provisions. If you were to find that we did want to limit the number of temporary licenses to seven we would have to just have an understanding that the process will be lengthier than otherwise. So I think that's for me when I look at that specific question and we have talked about that, of course. I think that's the critical component is just understanding where we stand on the temp license provisions. Councilor Grossman, I think that we could look back at the language under section 6C, subsection C. Right, so- I think and I apologize I'm just getting the language in front of me. So under C1 and C2, we went through at the beginning. I hear you saying we can't ignore a provision of the law and I can say to my personal point of view, I agree with that. There is, you mentioned the timeliness issue and it does have the word immediate in C1 and I'm quite aware of that word as being somewhat that it has some meaning. So I do hear you when we say that adding a competitive process to narrow it down to seven or up to seven or whatever the number is would require really the exact same process that Karen has already referenced that we're engaging in on that parallel track with respect to the full operators license because as we've already noted in our earlier meetings we expect to have some kind of an application process with a competitive selection process which would be exactly what Commissioner Skinner looked, I think it was alluding to how would you get it down to seven at the front? So I think if you can elaborate on just the meaning of C1 and two, it'd be helpful to me. Well, I think that, you know this is exactly the issue that's before the commission. There are a number of ways to read the language. You can read it on its face in isolation and try to draw conclusions as to what the intent was. The other way, and I think the preferred way based on the discussion thus far is appropriately so is to read these provisions in the context of 23N holistically and understand some of the other provisions that we discussed earlier today as far as ensuring that a regulatory framework is in place and things along those lines. And that doesn't quite get into Commissioner Skinner's question exactly but ultimately, but yes, the word immediate I'm just trying to pull it up here before me is used but that doesn't necessarily mean tomorrow. It has to be reviewed in the context of what we're trying to accomplish here. That being said, I think we do need to spend- And that's the pause because I wanted to point out that that was why we went through on A and B. All of those processes that actually are very much accepted throughout the industry. Commissioner O'Brien, you're nodding your head that includes that suitability issue that truncated or that level of suitability that we would expect. So, but in terms of that, how do we, how if you mentioned timely, it would add time, it would expand the timeframe if we engaged in a preliminary competitive selection process to address Commissioner Skinner's point or question. Yeah, I think so. And I think to that point, Madam Chair, I think there are ways to do it in a truncated fashion where it's not the, let's say the full suitability process that we're accustomed to. And Ms. Lillios and Ms. Wells already addressed some ways that we could accomplish that. And there are other ways to do that as well but I think it's needless to say receiving the temporary licenses if they're limited to seven and then we undertake the full competitive process would offer some advantage to the seven who receive the licenses. So we would have to ensure that there is a really thorough review process in place to ensure that those temp licenses are given to really deserving applicants. I think one question I would have is but it results in a lot of duplicative efforts. If we engage in that competitive process upfront or temporary, would we be doing the same exact thing again? I think that gets to the heart of the matter I think exactly is it's what would the temporary licensing process look like if it was done in a competitive fashion vis-a-vis the full process and what elements would be looked at in the beginning process as opposed to the full process and what other information would the commission be interested in knowing after the temporary licenses have already been issued and those operators are up and running and now they have some experience here in Massachusetts under their belts. So yes, I think there would certainly be some overlap. It's certainly, I don't think that that is necessarily a deal breaker, but I think we would certainly just have to think through how this was done. I will just suggest that we do have the ability to piece this together if that is the direction that commission is interested in going. And when I say extended process, it will be a little longer but I can't say exactly how long that would be. I wouldn't anticipate it would be lengthier than anyone could really tolerate. So. Todd, I'm not expanding that expanded timing front. I can see a situation where I am more comfortable with one suitability review approach over another based on the number of temp licenses we're talking about. So if we're talking about seven licenses, I might be on board for a really truncated suitability review process. But if we're talking about 50 licenses, then I would wanna see a more in-depth suitability review conducted. So it does play hand in hand in my opinion. I think that that makes a lot of sense. And of course, there's all the things that have already been set out that would wanna be considered to financial ability, experience in the field. There are all kinds of considerations that ultimately of course the commission will likely be interested in reviewing before determining which entity to offer the full operator license to. And we'll have to go through those and determine which you would wanna look at precisely when it comes to any kind of competitive temporary process. There will necessarily be overlap for sure. But again, I don't think that is necessarily the biggest hurdle to clear. Other questions or comments to our Councilor Grossman? Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Maynard. No, we've discussed the worry of, and this isn't new to both the director and Todd, we've discussed the worry of reading out the temporary licenses, the process of the law. But I actually worry, and I've said this, but I wanna kind of explain it about practically reading out the category three provision of the law in the short term. And I know that we have to follow what the law requires, but we should be clear that there are potential dangers in our charge of implementing this law. I'm worried about implementing a licensing construct that saturates the market with temporary licensees who do not ultimately become category three licensees under that kind of heightened and more robust standard of protection. And it will, as for all the reasons, and set over and over again, create instability to the temporary licensees, to the category three candidates, and ultimately to the consumers. These problems do stem from the fact that we have no cap on temporary licenses, but we have discretion to issue from zero to seven under the category three, which includes full suitability. To me, the best way to fix this issue, right, and the point I'm trying to make is to get the category three provisions up and running as soon as possible, and to move quickly on them, right? I'm more worried long-term about reading category three out than reading the temporary licensure piece out. That's just my perspective. The quicker we get the full thing done, the easier this is going to be, and the more stability it's going to create. Commissioner Rowan? Yeah, I can see your perspective, Commissioner Maynard. I have a concern about the lack of sunshine provision in this, and that I think there is a mechanism in the current statute for us to write our regulations to address some of the points raised by you, by Commissioner Skinner, by all of us, that again, harmonize the different references. As a reference to these temporary licenses expiring at a year or upon final determination of the application for an operator's license. So the intent is clearly also linked to the application for a full operator's license. There may come a time when these become almost illegal. If we already have seven up and running, what would be the point if you can also get a final license? I mean, there are ways that I think that we need to do deeper dives on this analysis in terms of the regs. Looking at capping it at seven, Commissioner Skinner, things like the consequences to pulling out, what kind of bond would be up? What are the consequences if you put up and don't put in for a full operator's license? I have concerns launching three before we do one and two because I personally have more confidence in the suitability in one and two because they've already been through the process. There are controls for responsible gaming already in place that we know work incredibly effectively with the team that we have. And so I think parallel tracks are gonna be critical to this. And I think we need to do a deeper dive to look at this holistically so that the intent of the statute is done in a way that complies with our responsibility to protect the constituents and to protect, as you pointed out, all of you, Commissioner Hill, everybody, the stability of the industry as well. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien, your response, Sean. Yeah, if I may. And maybe I wasn't clear enough. I agree with you that, you know, the category one, the category twos. I'm really comparing the category three to the temporary un-tethered process of giving out four-year 50, right? So when I say that, I'm really comparing that category three to the temporary, not the category three to one, two. And I do think that that's, I agree with you. I think we're actually growing at the same boat. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien, you want to respond? No, that's great. And I think that there is a way, I think when you look at reconciling the un-tethered possible seven with the temp license, there is a way through regulation for us to do a number of things, to address the concerns that we've all raised of the risks that are inherent in that section. Not perfect, but I think there's a lot we can do. I agree. I agree that prior to probably understanding the extent of the potential pool of participants in a temporary and licensing landscape until we learned that number through the Noticeman intent, I think all of us had been thinking about these issues about how do we get to that level of confidence in our glory, and I appreciate today's presentation to emphasize that it is broad in our discretion to provide those safeguards that have all been mentioned and to address the considerations that have been mentioned. I think we could get comfortable. I think the complexity I'm really struggling with is, it is my understanding. I have to turn on my lights, just something. There you go, you're okay. I'm on the dark, and maybe that's actually symbolic. I'm struggling with the idea that the temporary licensure pool was not limited by the legislature. There's probably some legislative history to look back on and how that happened, but it was very intentionally limited with respect to the full operation license. And so I think that it's my understanding from really over the last three years of hearing from other jurisdictions and watching the business models unfold that entry into the at least the mobile, let's just mobile digital operating world, entering together because of the intensity trying to attract your patron is so critical that there is probably an intention to let everybody start swimming early on. I'm not sure I feel comfortable that we have the legal authority limit that pool. I just don't know if we have that legal authority because it's so deep contrast. With that said, if we, you know, we're being able to have that, I do think that might just be more and more work and delay on constructing this temporary process. The, however, the outcome of having to shut down what will probably, in fact, let's assume that there isn't any cap and like Brad says, Commissioner Hill says 23 are in the idea of having to issue notices to honorably operating businesses that just didn't happen to make our final cut of up to seven is just untenable to me. And then the fallout to customers as Karen outlined so well in a multitude of questions there and Karen, you could probably think of the same number of continuing numbers. It's just a construct that I would say was never intended here by our thoughtful legislature. But I haven't figured out a practical workaround and that may bring me back to what Karen, we want to hear on the next couple of points why we absolutely do need to hear from these operators and we will ask this for input on this issue next week at what we're calling a round table and I can elaborate on that. But I can say that I'm still really struggling as to the construct as it's written with the full integration of 23K, 23N and that broad discretion that we have. Commissioner O'Brien, did you turn off your volume? No, I just never muted myself, so. Oh, okay. So you were nodding, did you want to help me out or give contrast? No, I mean, I share the concerns and the frustrations and I think that what is in front of us right now, I think that there are options. As I said, they're not perfect but I think there are some ways to mitigate the risk. Unless and until there's a more permanent legislative fix. Right, one other matter that I would just say is that customers will need to understand this. If there are even ways to mitigate that going into a landscape where their preferred platform, if they are engaged in a temporary pool may in fact have to be shut down under this construct. I think we may be having some different thoughts as to how to interpret the construct and I'm all ears about in terms of statutory interpretation. But right now, I guess I should just turn to our legal folks. Are you imagining the outcome that Karen explained that there is a possibility that, and again, setting aside the idea of reducing the group. Without reducing the group from the onset is Karen's description of the outcome aligned with your thinking in terms of your interpretation of the statute that they would require as to ask potentially assuming larger than our final selected group potential of having them disengage their operations. Anyone want to answer that? I see John. I think that would certainly coincide with just the plain facial reading of what the statute says, which is not to say that there aren't ways to read the statute that would allow for different approaches. But that is certainly one thing, one way we have contemplated it and we have being aware of course of the consumer protection issues and other issues that would create in the marketplace. We have of course thought about ways to address that. Certainly, and Karen already talked about some of them, just if that were to be the result, that certainly there would need to be disclaimers and notifications provided to consumers as to how or what the status of each of these operations actually was at the time. There has been thought paid into essentially trying to link the temporary licensing process with the, I'll call it the permanent licensing process. So that it's more of a fluid process and it's not that we're just temporary licensing and then, oh, let's go build out this operational process that they work hand in hand with one another to ensure that the entities that are applying are of a certain caliber and are likely to be able to compete at a certain level. So there are a number of approaches to it, but the answer to your question is we have certainly contemplated that and that is a real possibility. I think it's just a fact of the way the law was written and there's no way around that. And that is on the commission at the moment and us, I was gonna say us, but ultimately the commission has to make the vote still or else at the same time, but we'll have to navigate this. And I see Mr. Povich has his hand raised. So I'd love to pivot over to him. Thank you. Thank you. It's okay with you, Chair, I'll, because I agree with what Todd said that I agree with all of the discussion, but I think it all goes back a little bit to the beginning, which was a discussion of the broad powers that the commission has in this area to try to square the circle of the statue a little bit and make this all work. And I think as there's a process, to the extent that the commission decides it should be a process for temporary licenses, especially the untethered one. I don't think it's unreasonable that part of the application of to that process includes how the potential recipients of category three temporary licenses would mitigate the issues that the executive director discussed as well as a number of things that have come up. I mean, I think it's a hard problem. I think the going from whatever the number is to seven is a potentially largely disruptive force, but in the commission's authority, as was discussed earlier, doing the best everyone can to anticipate those problems and incorporating matters in the application that would seek to address them from the outset is a way to think about it consistent with the presentation that we heard from the beginning from Caitlin and Nina. Thank you. Commissioner Hill, did you want to comment? Okay, you're all set. Questions or comments? Thanks again, Mr. Povetian. And thank you for standing by. But Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Skinner. I actually have a request, Madam Chair. I think it's reasonable to have council sort of dig into this question a little bit more. Given that the statute is silent on a cap for the number of temporary licenses, I would like to have an analysis of the risks associated with doing it just that. Thank you. And that would help me out at my struggle, Commissioner Skinner. So thank you, Commissioner, Executive Director Wells. Yeah, Madam Chair, you had already referenced this, but I thought it might be helpful to also overlay another complicating factor. That's the issue of simultaneous versus staggered launch and how this ties into this whole issue. Do you want to do some kind of competitive process in narrowing the field of the untethered mobile operators? My expectation is that everyone wants to get going. And if there is an added time component for this process, then the commission would undoubtedly have to wrestle with the issue of do you let certain parties launch because they're ready to go and they don't have this issue of the, and they don't have the issue of the competitive process or do you want them all to launch at the same time? Different jurisdictions do things differently with respect to a staggered versus simultaneous launch. So there's precedent for different ways of doing it. You could implement a retail operations first and then all of the mobile, both the tethered and untethered, you could do the retail and the tethered mobile and then do the other untethered mobile afterwards. There are some equity issues because going to market first certainly gives a competitive advantage. So there are certain tensions in what's fair and then what's expedient. So that's just another matter that overlays this whole issue of the complications of having a cap on the final licenses and no cap explicitly identified on the temporary licensure for these untethered operators. Thank you. And you did have an outline of those issues which we appreciate and I'm not sure today we can resolve all these issues. I think we are going to be looking for as commissioner Skinner has already asked some additional legal insights but all of us can probably be informed by next week's discussion. Commissioner, do we have more further questions, comments on the presentation so far? Commissioner Hill. So I think I need to understand better from staff. So I'll just lay out a scenario for you. So we let the three casinos and the two-time you casting operations get up and running before we do the mobile. And this is a loaded question and you may not be able to answer it. So if we allow that to happen, how long from that point to the next point of allowing those who wanna be able to bet on their electronic phones and things of that sort, how long would it be? We're really not talking about the question that everybody wants to know and that's about timing. If we were to allow, if we split it and we allowed the five to get their licenses first, get up and running and then as going down the same path, we are putting together our regulations for the others. What's the timing on all of this? And we must have at some point now after having this before us, some indication of what we are talking about for time. And I've been frustrated that I can't myself figure out what that would be. Do we have any answer for that today? Well, if I may, I'll jump in. I think that there's a initial threshold question which we already identified. Is that, and I assume you're talking about because there would be a competitive process before we could launch and you're not launching everybody because they're just requested a temporary license. Okay, so the initial question is that competitive process, is it some kind of truncated competitive process just for temporary licensure? Or are you really doing the full fledged analysis of really who's ultimately gonna get the licensure? But the temporary means you actually getting your license before a full suitability is done. And as you noted from the last meeting where we set up some criteria and the evaluation process. So if it's a full evaluation process and you're potentially narrowing say, and I know these numbers, you know, throwing numbers out they're not definite, this is some guesswork. But say you have 30 and you're narrowing it down to seven that is a significant amount of work, particularly for the commission in evaluating those proposals and narrowing it down. That could take, you know, for the final a number of months. You could theoretically do some kind of truncated process that poses that would be just for temporary licensure. I think that the chair mentioned that that would be more time efficient. However, then those folks get sort of a leg up and there may be some, you know, potential litigation on that because it wasn't as full as the final license. So we're talking months potentially for a full process from today. And I don't know, chair, if you wanna comment on some of these decisions that have to happen in between but there would be a significant gap between launching without a competitive process and then the others that would need to go through a competitive process. And then the other question is do you allow the mobiles that are tethered to the casinos and the time forecast facilities to operate in the mobile environment while you're doing your competitive process? Because then there's sort of a disparity between two like parties that, you know, or two like categories, I should say because they are both competing for the mobile market. Can I add, Commissioner Hill, I'm hearing you and I'm hearing, can't avoid the issue of timeline and it's a quick one. I think for this complexity, Brad, that we're dealing with, we would probably have something that looks like a timeline that we could reasonably depend upon and I don't wanna put words in your mouth on Director Wells but I think we would have been rolling that out probably even earlier than today's meeting. So it is this exact complexity about what to do about the fact that we have such an abundance of riches, right? We have so many parties that are interested in competing for a role in this exciting market. It's just that because it isn't capped at the beginning and it is capped at the end that we have real challenges. I think it's a challenge too to start doing a competitive process at the front because I'm not even sure what that means on the other side but that would maybe make it easier for us but I'm not sure it'd be fair for everyone and I'm not even sure it's allowed under the law so that's why I need more input. So, but I think Commissioner Hill was asking if in fact retail were to go forward, retail were to go forward in the best of circumstances of addressing these issues today do we have any reasonable expectation around standing up the mobile sports wagering piece of our law? Is that really what you were getting at Commissioner Hill? The answer is yes. What I'm getting at is I think the public really wants to know or at least we can't give them a final date, we know that but can we give them an expectation? Is that something that we can do soon? I think it's fair that if we can do that that we do that. Now there may come a point where and I'm not even gonna put out a scenario because I don't want the press to say this is what Commissioner Hill said but let's say we had picked a certain timeframe and we don't hit it but we miss it by a week or two. I just think we need at some point to get some times out there for people to because I want people to know we're working very hard at this and some of the comments that you hear and not that I care what's said in the press about me for sure, I don't but the criticism is that we're not really putting out some type of timeframe when this might happen and that's just a concern to me and I think it is of some of the members or at least I think maybe that might be. So it had been my hope today that we were able to talk about category one, category two, category three if everything worked out great what would the timing be for each of those? So I just don't know if that conversation can take place with the discussion we're having today that's all. A little concern, that's all. The rest of us, I'll have you way Commissioner O'Brien I just want to remind everyone of next week we will be getting some really good intelligence but Commissioner O'Brien. I do and part of the reason we can't give those dates quite frankly is the topic that's taken up the bulk of our time this morning. Yes, for sure. And we did that with that, we would be closer to the time that you're talking about and being able to give a timeline because everybody is working to try to figure out what that is so we can get this moving. So I feel your frustration. I understand it's a frustration that's out there but as you can see from the conversation this morning it's complicated. Yes. And can I just remind everyone that and I want to credit the team that they're on today and I know they're also multitasking so I appreciate that they are working on everything that we're able to advance as a legal team stated there's a lot of comparables that we can turn to based on our experience with casino gaming and 23K. So work is advancing and advancing and folks are that in their own individual skillset talent responsibilities that's advancing temporary licensure we had not brought it up earlier, even referencing it because of the exact complexity that we're talking about today. So it's a stall but it doesn't mean work it's not going forward. So Commissioner Hill. Agreed. Yeah and I know you agree and I think I'll speak for all of us but on that point I know I can. I have full confidence on that but I wonder Karen rather than I'm happy if you want to feel comfortable getting some kind of a reasonable timeframe. I also want to say that next Thursday when we will hear from every interested operator on these matters might shed some light might shed some consensus and also may come up with a solution we're not thinking about and crossing my fingers out front. Commissioner Padraic done it again. And that's actually you and I are aligned on that thinking because some of this potentially may be resolved by some kind of cooperation or ideas from the prospective licensees themselves. So that's why I think this meeting next Thursday, the 22nd is so critical and one of the reasons we requested that it be in person so there can be some personal interaction. The relationship between the regulator and the licensee is historically can be really helpful. If there is a, it can be really helpful if there is a good relationship and cooperation and understanding. We have had good relationships with our three casino licensees as far as compliance and communication. And the hope is that we will continue that pattern as we go forward. They may come to the table next Thursday and say, hey, we have this great solution. We understand the problem. So we would like to hear from them to see if there is a way to navigate this complication within the statute. And we may be able to get a quicker timeframe based on some cooperation from them. So I think that may be something we should look at before we start throwing dates out. And I think that they may also address Mr. Povich's comments that in terms of, no, maybe there's a higher level of comfort around how to disengage a business than we're imagining and all that they would agree to. The one thing I would say is we know that it's probably very unusual to disengage an honorable organization. There must be rules and regulations about those that fall into trouble that doesn't happen frequently, but that would be a different set of circumstances. But again, they may be able to shed some light on that as well. So if a commissioner of health, if we can beg to allow for more input, I know that you want that input as well. Of course I do. And there's no question about that. It's just, I'm an inpatient person. You all know that from the last year. I wanna see us move forward as quickly as we can. Understanding, and as I said this right from the beginning, I don't wanna put anything in jeopardy about the type of people that we're gonna have doing business here. And I wanna make sure our consumers are protected. But I just know that the public is anxious and would love to at least know or possibly know when this might happen. Maybe in a week's time, we can have that question answered. And I think to be fair to the team, they are thinking about a timeline with these different contingencies. Yeah, I don't know the details, but I do know that I've asked this exact question and there are, I'm in the dark again, but there are timelines underway trying to build in some contingency. So that is something that can be offered just asking for just a little bit more intel.  My apologies. No, I think having heard you, Madam Chair and Commissioner Hill, I think that something that I wanna preview for my way of thinking for next week is, to the folks that join us next week, is temporary licensure a red herring and is it worth it to move to the full process given that they could ultimately enter the market and be removed to the market in a year or less. And it's something that I will be thinking about and we'll probably ask directly next week. So I just wanted to preview that. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Commissioner O'Brien. I know I'm throwing you off. I'm just not muting today, so. And your thoughts lit up, so I really thought you were leaning in and I'd rather make a mistake of including you than disregarding Commissioner Hill. No, I think that's enough. Okay, Commissioner Hill. No, I was gonna say to Commissioner O'Brien, I do miss you a little cat running across the desk. So. There's one right to the right of me. All right, Russ Leep. But yeah, I'm sure if this meeting goes long enough, you all have the pleasure of seeing him again. Always a good friend to see during our meetings. We love our pets. Okay, Commissioner Skinner, are you all set so that we could, I think probably take a break and then move on to some of the items that we've touched on earlier, but not necessarily directly related to temporary licensure. Are we all set, Commissioner Skinner? I'm all set. I am not standing in the way of lunch. So 1154. So anyway, first I wanna fully go into those logistics. I wanna thank the representatives from Anderson Krieger, Mina Lawn, thank you. And I don't think I'm missing anyone else from that team. And then of course, Katelyn, thank you for walking us through what we really need to understand the statutory structure and Todd. I know that you've got North ahead of you, but in NK, you may be staying on, but thank you for at least being here to guide us through this complex matter. Thank you again to Director Lillios for chiming in. And of course Karen, your leadership here. So it seems to me it is a good time to take a lunch break. It's 1155. So noon, and it's really important distraction. Our legs out is 1230. Okay, but everyone is that too long. 1230, feel good? I'm seeing nodding. All right, then we'll reconvene folks at 1230 and we'll be looking at item number four, which starts again with our legal division. Thanks everyone for your participation so far. Thank you very much. Thanks, Dave. Oh, good. Thanks so much. Okay, we are reconvening the Game Commission's public meeting number 393. And because we're holding this meeting virtually, I'll ask for roll call Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. Commissioner Mead. I'm here, Madam Chair. Thank you. And we're set to go and we are returning to our agenda. And we'll start with item number four, Karen and Todd, Director Wells and Councilor Gressman. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to, oh, Karen, if you want to take it. I was going to turn it over to Todd. Thank you. Okay, okay. Thank you. So this matter relates to the draft of the House Rules Regulation that the commission reviewed recently. By way of update, I can advise that we are actively working on adjustments to the language based upon the past discussion. We hope to bring this back before the commission shortly as part of the suite of regs that we just recently this morning discussed will be necessary in order for the commencement of sports wagering operations. It seems as though it would be helpful to bring them back in that context just to help conceptualize where they fit into the overall framework and how they would actually work. So that is our plan if that is acceptable for the House Rules Regulations. Questions for Councilor Gressman. This is a date for you, Todd, today. Any questions? I think that's a good update. Director Wells, do you want to add in or you want to set? Yeah, I'll set. Thank you. Okay. And without any questions on that, we'll turn to floor B. Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. I can take this one. Okay. Thank you. So, of course. So at last week's meeting, you voted to promulgate by emergency and to begin the formal promulgation process on 205CMR 244.06 related to the certification of the independent testing labs for sports wagering devices. So the final version that you voted on gives the commission authority to authorize an entity certified as an independent testing lab pursuant to 205CMR 144, which is related to gaming devices and equipment to also provide testing services of sports wagering devices in Massachusetts. So in terms of the process for finalizing that commission authorization, staff would recommend that the two existing certified independent testing labs that were discussed last week, that's GLI and BMM, submit a petition for authorization to the commission that the commission could then review at its meeting on Monday the 19th. So we're really just looking for input today. We don't need to vote, but just to consensus as to whether that's how the commission would like to move forward on this authorization process. Commissioner's questions start Carrie, and Commissioner Browning. No, no questions, just confirming that that was what I thought would happen after the last vote. Excellent, and the timing is perfect. Our Monday meeting, if commissioners are fine with that because we won't have an agenda setting meeting between, okay, excellent. Commissioner Hill, you're nodding, thank you. All right, and Commissioner Maynard, all right, I'll set, all right. Well, that was a speedy number four. Is there anything else we need to add? That's it for me, thank you. Hey, thank you. And then we're gonna move right on to item number five, which deals with the horse racing application. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to jump in on that one. In the packet, you will see that there is a draft regulation that's codified at 205 CMR 2.01. It relates to the application itself for the conduct of a racing meeting by a new operator. This, it directly relates to the application that the commission recently just approved for use for the new racing license process. It is largely designed just to codify the statutory directive that an application be submitted to kick off the review process. It's contained in chapter 128A, section two of the general laws. And it also clarifies certain parts of the law, including things like the idea that the meets have to be honestly managed to ensure public confidence and things of that sort. Ultimately, the regulation reflects nearly entirely the provisions that were included in the application that the commission recently approved. And that is the intent. At present, there is nothing in the existing regulations in 205 CMR that address this particular issue. So that's why it's not redlined in any way. It's a completely new regulation. I'll pause there to talk about the substance. And then Madam Chair and commissioners, we can talk a little bit about the promulgation process, which I think is also relevant. Everyone else that? Okay, please, Todd, Christine. Thank you. So I think it's important, since we haven't looked at any racing regulations in quite some time to draw the commission's attention to chapter 128A, section 9B. Unlike many other regulations, which are largely just governed by chapter 30A of the general laws, which is the Administrative Procedures Act. In the case of racing regulations, there's a statute that specifically addresses a couple of principles. And the first is that in addition to all of the other administrative requirements under 30A required to adopt a regulation, in the context of horse racing, there's a requirement that the draft once approved essentially be submitted to the legislature so that they may have a chance to review it. And the law gives them essentially 60 days to disapprove of the draft and to let us know whether they take any issue with that. So effectively, on my read of the statute, that adds 60 days to the process, could be shorter, I suppose, if the legislature were to respond in shorter order, but at this point where the session has ended, that's unlikely to happen. And so that's that just so we understand the timing. So in addition to the 60 to 90 days, which we say it generally takes to promulgate a regulation, we have to add an additional 60 days onto that process. And there's also some language in 9B that talks about the emergency adoption of regulations. And of course, we've talked about that in the context of sports wagering. And we've talked about it in the context of chapter 30A itself. In the context of horse racing, there is specific language that says that the commission can adopt emergency regulations, but it has to be designed to protect the health or safety of the public participants or animals. So it's very specific as to when you can do that. And ultimately, the commission would have to satisfy itself that if we were gonna use it, for example, in this instance, that the application relates to one of those principles, i.e. to protect the health or safety of the public participants or animals. So that's just a little bit about the promulgation process itself. Let me stop there and Madam Chair, see if there are any questions or comments about that part. Commissioner's questions. Can you just remind me of the application process also dictated by statute, the date, the timeframe, how would we reconcile what you just explained for the implications for the effectiveness of an emergency bag if we weren't to decide that it fits the, but I think it's perhaps more narrow than the discussion kind of regulation last week, kind of way back inside of that. Well, I guess I should add that it is my opinion that the statute itself affords the commission a clear authority to put out an application in the form that was done previously. The application, and we discussed this in many ways during the commission's review process, is really reflective of a couple of things that are covered in other areas. It is reflective of the law in chapter 128A itself in section two, where it specifically talks about the application process. It incorporates a number of other sections of the law itself, including places in section three, for example, where it talks about ensuring that the applicant has the financial ability to successfully operate a track, and that our people who can honestly manage a racing meeting, it includes things that we talked about along the lines of receiving municipal approval of the location and that there's a county vote. So all of those things, I mean, all of the things that are contained in the application, since we're using the term tethered, I think we can say are tethered directly to other provisions of the law. There are not things that the commission came up with on its own, but to the extent any of them are things we came up with, I would submit that under section two, the law gives the commission clear authority to add in other questions along those lines. So even without a regulation in this case, I mean, it's important to underscore that I'm talking about the racing application specifically. In this case, the commission is on solid ground moving forward with the application as approved recently. This regulation will help support that in the future and clarify for at least the, including any applicants coming our way in the near future, the rationale behind some of the provisions of the application. Really helpful talk, thank you. Other questions for Todd, okay. If that being the case, Madam Chair and commissioners, if you are comfortable with the language of the regulation, we'd ask that you consider voting to approve it and authorize the commencement of the promulgation process. Again, it'll take its ordinary path with all the regular notices and what have you with just the understanding that after you approve it, after a public hearing, we'll have to file it with the legislature. Otherwise, it's exactly the same as usual. Well, I see Dr. Michael has raised her hand. Good to see you. Good to see you, Dr. Michael. Hi, thank you. I had talked to Todd earlier where we're doing things in a speeded up manner lately. I did have one comment on 1L where it says information relative to proposed wagering plan, including the use of paramutual simulcasting and advanced deposit wagering. And I would suggest changing that to say information relative to the proposed paramutual wagering plan for live racing, simulcasting, and advanced deposit wagering. Just to make it clear that we're having paramutual wagering on live racing, simulcasting, and the ADWs. And thank you, Dr. Leipman. I apologize, Dr. Leipman. I made a note and then I took so many other notes that that one got lost in there, but she did mention that earlier. I can show you what that would look like in the draft. Thank you. And Dr. Leipman has achieved some kind of a legal degree in the course of her career, which we appreciate very much. So this is the draft of 2.01 and this is the section Dr. Leipman was just talking about right here. Can you enlarge that please, Todd? Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Sorry. No, ma'am. Okay. There we go. Perfect. It really, as she just explained, just recognizes that all of these reforms of paramutual wagering and that the application itself doesn't need to be adjusted. It was just making sure that the regulation itself reflects that ADW and simulcasting are forms of paramutual wagering instead of suggesting that it's a separate kind of wagering. Thank you. Everyone else set with that? So do you have questions? Commissioner O'Brien questions for either Todd? Are you prepared to move? I just want to call the question. Anyone have any questions for Todd or Alex? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, do you think they're moving? Sure. Madam Chair, I moved that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 2.01 as included in the commissioner's packet and it's further discussed and edited here today. Particularly noting Dr. Lightbounds' edit and further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation, Secretary of the Commonwealth to begin the regulation promulgation process. I further moved the staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles and to file any additional regs as reserved or make any administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. And Commissioner Maynard, you moved. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. 5-0. Thank you. Thank you. And a great explanation, Todd, on the statutory construct there. 5-B, this is an issue that came up in our discussion. I'll turn it over to you again, Todd, please. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So you'll recall, commissioners, that this issue came up again in the context of the discussion of the horse racing application that we just recently reviewed. And there was a question as to essentially what the effect of awarding a license to a new operator would be in the context of the sports wagering law chapter 23 and this is obviously a critical question. It's of great importance. And it will be essential that we ensure that we have had an adequate opportunity to review all of the governing provisions of chapter 23 and which as we've discussed have, there are a number of places where this issue is addressed. So we just wanted to come in today and tell you that we are actively looking at it and hopefully in a short order to be able to offer a solid opinion as to what the again, the effect of the award of a 120A license would be vis-a-vis the sports wagering law. Questions, concerns, prompts? Yeah. I'm also, can you give an update on the application if it's on the website now? Did you say that? Kathy, it's Karen. The horse racing license, though the horse racing license application is up. It is. I think both the new applicants and renewals, I just got a text from Nelson. Literally a minute ago. Okay, thank you, thank you. So this is just an outstanding issue, correct, Todd? Yes, it will certainly be helpful to address in short order because the application process will, if anyone applies, will likely commence very shortly. Okay, right. And the deadline for an application is October 1st. And that would also include the application for renewal. That's right. I mean, we know who the renewal is and that's Plain Ridge Park and they would qualify for category one license. So this issue is not really relevant to them, I don't think. No, no, no. For horse racing, they have, that's right. Not for sports wagering, right? But they have their own renewal process as well. I'm just reminding us that renewals have potential for renewal and potential for renewal. Yes. Application coming in. Okay, excellent. Thank you. And thank you, Mills for confirming that. All right. So. Madam Chair. Yes, yes, I'm sorry. Can I just thank the staff for this new application? A lot of hard work went into this over the last few months, a lot of hard work. I just wanna recognize the legal staff and Dr. Lightbaum for all the work they put into this. I worked with them a little bit on it and a lot of time and effort went into it. So thank you. Thank you, commissioners, I appreciate that. I'll be sure of course to pass that along to everyone. I know everyone is appreciative. Everyone has expressed that in a different way. So thank you for saying that. Thank you so much. Commissioner Hill for reminding us of that. It's been an ongoing matter and we appreciate all the work that's gone into it. Moving on then, unless there are further questions for Todd, Dr. Lightbaum, all right, then we'll go to the commissioner updates. And the first one that's listed is with respect to what we have been referring to as a round table that will relate to the mobile and digital sports wager operators. And we did reference that it is scheduled for September 22nd, commissioners, we've agreed. I think with a 9 a.m. start that morning. And I have to thank Tom Mills and Crystal Bocherman. I'm sure maybe Dave Sousa has been involved as well, but everyone who has been in the course, Director Wells on figuring out the logistics for holding a meeting in person, which we haven't done for a while. But given the response, the robust response from the mobile sports wagering operators, and as I referenced before, I can understand why it has chooses the great sports market. We do want to hear from them and it would be hard to navigate that many interested parties to a virtual platform. So we're scheduled to meet on September 22nd at the Gardner Auditorium, which is at the State House, and more details will be provided to us and to the public and to the individual entities that have expressed interest. We thought in terms of how this meeting would be conducted, it would be a little bit different than how we've conducted the two other round tables that we've had first with the current licensees. And then I thought it was a very successful round table with all the responsible gaming experts earlier this week. That was as close to around the table discussion that I've seen using a virtual format. And thank Director Van der Linden for really helping us with the invitations to a varied group of perspectives and such elite experts. So this would look a little bit different. We probably would ask each interested party to provide a statement. We wanted to give a couple of prompts and they'll be careful timekeeping because of the number of expected attendees. And Karen and team have worked out a couple of questions. First would be very, very much aligned with our discussion earlier today. Is there a way to implement the untethered category three temporary licensing process that protects the integrity of the initial launch? Technical testing, suitability, internal controls, and that's not a limited list and also protects the Massachusetts consumer in the event of a large number of the temporary licensees having to dismantle their operation within a short period of time. So that would be the first question and see what come up with. And then second, what is your position on a staggered launch versus a simultaneous launch of the different categories of sports wagering operators? Retail versus mobile, tethered mobile, again, that's what the category one and two licensees, they have the option of having a relationship with a mobile operator versus the untethered mobile operator which we understand will ultimately be up to no more than set under 23 and. So what are your thoughts? I think that this language may have been provided to you otherwise we can put it up. Karen. I'll defer to the commissioners how we want to handle it. I can share my screen if you want to edit what I have that may be helpful. The thinking was we didn't want to put something out in the public. People may think this is the actual question and the commission hadn't actually decided that this is the question. So that's why we did it this way. This is right. Do you want me to share my screen so you can look at the text? Okay, hold on. And in, you know, today's discussion may have informed a little bit more. So we may want to tweak, take everybody's suggestion. And again, this would be a prompt for the attendees. And we would hear from them with some time allowing us to circle back to specific questions for specific entities. So yeah, I'm happy to be the scrivener and any changes the commission wants we can add now before we would send this question out to the prospective licensees. First up on here, okay, I mean, yeah. No, I just have a, just a functional question, a scheduling question. So five minutes per anybody who may potentially show what does that lead us to? We did, with an assumption around 30 to 40 it gets us to at worst three hours and 15 minutes and at best like two hours and 45 minutes in caring or something like that. If they go in a row, which we would, we would do by alphabet to keep folks covered by microphone and everything, right? But we are thinking of ideally, Tricia O'Brien, I timed it out with Crystal that it would still allow for 20 minutes to a half an hour for us to ask any specific questions that are presented, you know, that are prompted by the presentations as opposed to divorced from the presentations that it would be a 12, 30 to one o'clock finish. It was the idea that they would, Working on a hybrid for you, Tricia O'Brien given. Right, I was gonna thank Crystal and Dave and Mills on that too. Cause I know given my circumstances I most likely will have to be remote. Is the idea that we wait and hold questions to a 20 to 30 minute period at the end to speed this along? Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I think that maybe Karen may have had that good idea that, and I think it's going to be really powerful to hear from entity after entity after entity to see if we start hearing themes or if we start hearing some distinguishing notes. I don't know if other commissioners feel the same way, but we're getting a very favorable response, right? Director Long? Correct. Crystal's been monitoring that. Other comments on that was on process. What about in process or question? So I have a question on number one though. So the way it's phrased, I almost feel like is a question we need to answer ourselves. And I'm wondering if there's a way that better phrases it out to the people that are speaking to us cause they may not have an appreciation for like what implementation would require. I don't know if there's a way to tweak number one to get to the same point, but ask it in a different way. All right, let me think. There's a way to think. The MGC is intense to implement untethered category three temp licensing while sustaining the integrity of the initial launch, meaning and the concern. Do you have any either suggestions or concerns on this point? I feel like it's too open and I worry there's going to be a lot of bloviating. Yeah, I mean, I think one of the things we wanna potentially explore is given the problems that we've identified, it's possible that we could have these applicants come in or potential applicants come in and say, you know what, we see the problem here. We don't really wanna be in a position where we pay a million dollars and then two months later, we get our licenses pulled. So it may be there is some consensus that the potential licensee would rather us expedite the whole process, do the whole thing and not necessarily apply for a temporary license, but that would, you know, given the structure in the statute, we can't, you know, as the chair and you know, the general counsel noted just sort of ignoring it made up in office. No, I'm not talking about ignoring it at all. I'm just trying to figure out the way to very much draw the parameters of it and narrow down, you know, like, you know, if you believe there, you know, I don't know. I just, I worry about even starting with one. Yeah. I don't know, like it's, I'm worried that some things are gonna overtake getting sort of the directed answers that we're looking for on the topics we talked about. Well, let me ask you this and maybe this will help me throw up with some language. What would you like to hear from them? Like what is valid to the commissioners at this round table? Could I frame it a little bit differently? Is it there with respect to the first part that we all have a consensus that, that, but for kind of a complicating factor, all of us know that there's going to take some suitability testing all of those, what is expected by the industry and anything that we want to add, there will be eligibility standards that will have to be in place in any case for a temporary licensee. So do we say assuming all of this? Right. Maybe more interested in finding out how to help us with the complex issue. Is that what you're getting at? Yeah, I guess that's what it is. It's like, I want to narrow. So I don't want to hear them commenting necessarily on stuff we've already agreed on. It's more, what else can you add to this conversation? Right. Is it there? I don't want to put words in the mouth. We have, oh, someone's down. Yeah. And there's the dog. So I will meet myself. So what I'm hearing you saying, assuming the commission implements, sorry. Assume, say, assuming any implement, any commission implementation of the categorical and three temporary licenses would include commission implementation. Hold on. Okay. Otherwise, right? Of category three, sorry. I'll see how my typing is not the best. Of category temporary licensure. Okay. So assuming any commission implementation of category three temporary licensure includes or what was the phraseology? Say untethered category three licensing would necessarily include, you know, technical testing, suitability, internal controls, and also protect the consumer. And then Kathy's sort of point about, you know, do you have anything to add in terms of anything else you would see as necessary or any pitfalls to going forward with that? Okay. Okay. I'm trying to clean that out. That's kind of what I was thinking. I was wondering, You can clean up the language a little bit more. It's almost breaking the first part. The front end, you want input on, and then the back end, we want input on. Is that, I mean, sort of wanted to, almost like three questions. Right. And nobody can put their comments on fast speed, right? Right. Okay. Is that what you're thinking and then say something to the effects? Do you have any other suggestions on protecting the integrity of the initial launch and the Massachusetts? And then I think I almost feel like the last part is a separate question on the large number. Yeah, because we're trying to limit it to two questions. But I almost kind of want to not open up the whole discussion on the first part because I think we have a consensus and we have discussion. Well, that's a point, maybe just the question. Maybe we only do. Assuming all of this. All of this. Do you have any questions on the problem that has been a not problem complexity that has been identified regarding the potential early, you know, or the dismantling operations piece. But I'm speaking, I don't want to speak for anyone else. Commissioner Skinner, commissioner Hill, commissioner Maynard, would you want to hear more on that first part about what we're expecting of standing up a temporary licensee, if assuming that we have a temporary licensee process? Do you feel that we need to get more from the operatives on that point? Given that there's limited amount of time and we have opportunity, let's be clear, and commissioner Skinner, you've also referenced this and commissioner Maynard too, written increase, we can follow up with more input. So, and we can also do a virtual meeting, we can do another meeting. So for this limited meeting, are you okay if we just make an assumption around the first part and then just go deep into the complexity raised today? Karen, they must have adjusted the lighting. Yeah, I don't know what's going on today. It's becoming too late. Yeah, mine too. Commissioner Skinner, commissioner Hill, commissioner Hill. I actually have a question on the next question. So when we get to that, I'll ask. So let's just concentrate on number one, commissioner Maynard, I can see- Number one, I'm fine with. Madam Chair, as I said earlier, so I'm not hiding the ball here. And I think it's actually embedded within that question, right? I think that you've captured the essence of it in question one. I just want to know, the potential applicants even want to go through this, obviously the law requires it, it's there, but do they even want to apply for a temporary license, knowing that they're going to have to apply for a full license and knowing that as it's embedded in this question, that there's a good chance that they will pay their money and then they will get up and running and then they'll have to dismantle their operations, particularly in a short amount of time. So I would just post the question to them straight up, is it worth it for you or not? Maybe it is, and they may tell us all the reasons it is worth it, and maybe it's not, and maybe they'll voice all the reasons it's not worth it. Can I ask a technical question for the legal team? Can we say, do we need to say it's non-binding or do we not, you know, attendance is non-binding? So I guess any input, it would be to inform us, right? Mr. Maynard, get a sense as whether there's a, you know, what the level of interest is on the temporary. Yeah. Understanding what's been discussed here today, I think. Yeah, I would look at it differently. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Understanding with the whole, everything that we've described today and many were encouraged to listen in on today's conversation. They were, okay, how do you feel about that then? And I mentioned that only because some group may have not filed a notice of intent. So we have, all right. So do you want me to change this question and, right?  Let me just do another one up here. So this would be... I would include it, maybe include it before the, not do you intend, but a little bit less direct. Mr. Maynard, do you have a suggestion like perhaps after the comma and the assumption? Do you have any suggestions in what would be your level of interest in given? I was gonna say, do you want to do an AB? Just, I know you're trying to stick to just two questions. Yeah, because we only have five minutes. That's the problem. It's like, would you wanna, would you be interested in, if yes? Yeah. What are your suggestions? Are you assuming, are you, would you be interested in? Okay, hold on, hold on. In requesting to participate in a temporary list process. Okay. We can still ask them for suggestions. Madam Chair, I wonder if given the five minute limitation, whether or not we just wanna leave the opportunity for comment open-ended so that that would be their opportunity to tell us whatever it is they want us to hear from them on rather than narrowing the discussion. I think that we're trying to get a little bit of a consensus on this particular side. I think that was the intent, but I understand, Commissioner Skinner, if we open it up too widely, we may not, they may all be coming at it in a way that may not be as helpful for us that was respected today's. But I do think we need. We can get a lot of information in five minutes. We can. Yeah, that will be broader than this. I think, Commissioner Skinner, what do you think? Well, that would be my concern is that we're, we're, you know, shutting off any potential for a discussion on any other items that the operators may find challenging with the statute. So I just wanna make sure that they do, and I hear you, they will have an opportunity to submit written comment, which I think is great. I thought, you know, it's, I think it's important for us to hear from them about what their concerns are and not really try to dictate so much anyway. You know, what they discuss. In my experience with a format like this, we're actually, I think gonna hear a theme. And a lot of the operators will actually say, just following up on what A said, we just wanna add this piece and they won't even use the five minutes. I think there's gonna be plenty of time for us to ask those type of questions if we need to. If I'm hearing Commissioner Skinner, she's interested in having, you know, hearing like we did for the licensees about the other issues of the whole statute. I did think about that, Commissioner Skinner. I think Director Wells did too. Because of this format, it might be a harder conversation to have that in a fulsome fashion to really get into the details. So that might be rate written or another in virtual, a virtual warning, but in terms of the issue that we were raising today, when we are looking in the course, the second part will maybe even require more discussion. There may not be as clear consensus on the second question as maybe on the first, but we don't know yet on either. Do you see what I mean, Commissioner Skinner? We could do a third and if you have other time, you know, if there's more time, please, please. What would you ask if there's something? Yeah, I would just emphasize if this is going to be going out to potential attendees at some point prior to, I assume it is prior to the round table that we emphasize in that communication that folks will have the opportunity to submit written comment. Yeah. Well, and maybe more opportunities than you just, you know, imagine, but also we could say at the third, you know, if you have more time, please feel free to, you know, give your additional thoughts, but we don't, we will keep it a very close eye on time. We have a couple of deadlines that folks are looking at at the end of the time frame, but I think it will be a full three and a half or hour session anyway. So where are we on this question that's under number one right here? Are there changes you might need to make to that question? I can read it if it's helpful. Yes, please. Okay, assuming any commission implementation of temporary licensure for untethered category three operators would necessarily include technical testing, suitability, internal controls and other industry standard requirements. And given the logistical complexities and consumer protection concerns outlined at the commission meeting on September 15th, 2022, would you still have an interest in a temporary license? And if so, do you have any suggestions of how to address consumer protection concerns in the event that a large number of licensees must dismantle their operations within a short period of time? I would just take out the still. Just read, yeah, right that line, right after the 15th. Yeah, yep. Because I don't know if they- Oh, right, right, right. They may not have entered it, that's good. What else do you have? Well, I mean, you just need to unmute. The must should probably be a different, or yeah, in the event that a large number of licensees must dismantle or, you know, would have to or may- Okay, yep. Maybe require just a different mode there. So, may not be required to. Maybe required to dismantle. I can't see you, Jordan, or Brad, do you have, or Keisha, do you have comments? No comments for me. I think this will get us to a really good spot during the answer to this question. That's my comment. Okay, excellent. Commissioner Skinner, if we add them at the bottom too. And then we'll get to number two. Nikisha, I can't see you, I'm sorry, are you all set? I'm all set. Okay, excellent, thanks. Okay, so Karen, if you want to reread the number two. What is your position on a staggered launch versus a simultaneous launch of the different categories of sports wagering operators? Forensicist retail versus mobile, tethered mobile versus untethered mobile? Questions, comments? So, it's a great question. And my hope is that we just don't get a, I don't want to see that happen. There's my dog, sorry. Somebody's walking by the house, sorry. Really good, that's a really good question. All bark, no action. I just want to make sure that we're not getting, hold on one moment, I'm sorry. We're fine. Not a walk or a QPS, sorry. I just don't want them to say, no, we want to have it all done at once. I want some evidence backing up what they're saying. You know what I mean? I don't want a yes or no answer. I want a, you know, we've had experience in other jurisdictions. So it's almost, what is your position and why? Yes. Evidence-based, and what is your evidence-based position? I don't know. Something like that, actually. I mean, I just, I don't want a yes or a no answer. I want something to back it up.  Is that too strong? It's a little bit, I just thought to set it quickly. Jordan. I would assume that anyone who attends next week, I assume that they will bring evidence-based. I do think there should be a why, which really gets to Commissioner Hill. Yeah, what is your position and why? Yeah. You know, I think I'm hearing Commissioner Hill because I think we can guess as to the why's, but, and why, and maybe we could say comma, and experience from other jurisdictions, and impact on business or whatever, would be really helpful. I mean, is that the kind of thing you're looking for? Give them a little bit of a prompt, Brad, if you want. Maybe, maybe just say here, and reasoning, and maybe they don't have experience. So when I say any, about any experience from other jurisdictions, and reasoning behind your position should be included in your answer, like that. That would be helpful. Okay. I want to make sure we get as much information on this as we can get from the operators. I agree with you, Jordan. They probably will do that. I want to make sure they do that. Oh, I like it. Commissioner Maynard, are you well set? And Commissioner Bryant, I can't see you, so, Commissioner Maynard? Perfect. That's also your set. Commissioner Skinner? I'm set. And Commissioner Browning, you're also Commissioner Skinner? I'm good. How are the dogs feeling about it? Bella, okay with it? It was the dance of getting her outside, so she could grab her without coming in the house. So she's all good now. And Commissioner Hunt, you're getting your dog's name. His name is Oshie, and he has calmed down. So he's all good, he's all good. All right. So how do we feel about the last thing? Do we want it to be open-ended now, or do we? Yeah, so I just wrote, please note that in addition to your oral presentation, the commission welcomes written comments on these questions, as well as other issues that prospective applicants may want to address, period. I'm wondering about, they're going to feel like they need to do that now. And I'm wondering, do we want that now, or do we want to learn a little bit more so that we could actually maybe ask some pointed questions? I'm just a little bit worried, I'm a little bit worried about getting homework right now without a little bit more insight so that they'll be helping to answer questions, particular questions we may have as well as addressing their concerns. You know what I mean? Or could we say, please note that in your oral presentation, if you have additional time, you may address any concern you have. We also will be extending to the all-interested parties opportunities in the near future for written comments on questions that commission may have, as well as other issues that you'll address. That's the only thing I'm wondering about, because otherwise they're going to be starting to write notes. Chair, but the way you've rephrased it in the case we're going to invite them in the future to submit written comments. No, it's just like the thing. I don't want to go. Pardon me. It seems to me the way you've rephrased that the statement is that the commission will be inviting the opportunity for written comm