everyone and welcome to this talk that will be about virtual topology for virtual machines. Someone once said in theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is. I personally like this sentence a lot and I think that it applies quite well to virtualization particularly so to the topic at hand which is whether providing a virtual machine with a virtual topology is good, bad or something in between. Anyway in some more details this talk will be about this function in the linux kernel scheduler code called try to wake up it will be about this graph and it will be about these log entries reporting an unmitigated vulnerability that I recently saw inside the virtual machine for some background the word topology comes from mathematics and geometry where it refers to properties of an object that remains invariant even after some specific transformations such as stretching twisting crampling and bending in electronics and informatics instead it is used to describe the interconnections and the relationships between the various components of a computer system so now that I think about it I have definitely been in the mood of wanting to stretch twist crampling bend a CPU and let's see if after that it will keep showing that bug in my but anyway when there is no virtualization the physical topology of a system describes how many CPUs caches memory and IO controllers we have there and how they are organized in threads core sockets here are your caches numa nodes and IO buses and bridges on a standard linux systems there are multiple ways of analyzing the topology for instance just using a less CPU will already reveal a lot of useful information numa ctl dash dash hardware is another way to inspect how the CPUs and the memory are arranged in numa nodes and last but not least linux offers a really convenient set of interfaces for checking which CPUs are part of which core and package what part what other CPUs they share resources with and a whole lot of other information like these ones they are all available within the ccfs special file system which means they can also be queried from programs and scripts on the other end a graphical representation is preferable a tool called ls topo from the hw log project can be used to produce diagrams like this one in the slide these provides a very immediate and clear look of the systems components their relationships and their interconnections which is in fact by definition the system topology now if you have ever tried using any of these tools inside the virtual machine you know already that it is very much possible to do it in fact they work and the output they produce has the same format and look of what we see on bare metal but of course when you are looking at that what you are looking at is the virtual topology it is the job of the hypervisor and of the other components of the virtualization stack to put together the necessary pieces like cpu id bits and virtual cpi tables in such a way that when the operating system running inside a vm reads them it will configure itself like if it were running on a piece of hardware that adds the topology that the user requested let's just look quickly at some examples and that how they can be configured here for instance we see how to put together a virtual topology where all the eight vcpus are seen as separate so heads and at how the results look from inside the vm this is by the way the topology that kim builds by default this is instead how we can make the vcpus look like they are arranged in cohorts and threads or even in virtual numanoads not that recent enough versions of kim and libert allows us to specify even the distance between the virtual numanoads exactly like on real in general quering the details about the physical system topology and then take them into account when making decisions mainly at the os kernel level is a good thing the scheduler in the kernel is probably the most obvious example in fact in the scheduler if the scheduler knows about symmetric multithreading it can avoid scheduling tasks on two threads if there is a full core available which improves performance or it can try to run a task on the numanoad where the memory that it uses the most resides and this improves scalability and in fact these once and other features are all there inside the linux kernel scheduler but what about virtual topology i mean can the scheduler running inside a vm that has a virtual topology which includes smt behave the same as it would on bare metal and then assume to have done equally as good at improving the performance of the work of the running inside the vm well if the vm has a smt virtual topology the scheduler will behave like on bare metal that is for sure and it will probably run the task t2 from the example in this slide on either vcpu v2 or v3 but is this good or is it bad or maybe we just can't tell with with only this information yes the current answer is in fact that in order to know because in order to know whether it would be good or bad to run the task t2 on any of the vcpus say v2 we would need to know things like on which physical cpus the vcpus v1 and v2 actually run and maybe also what other host tasks run on the systems physical cpus besides the vcpus of the vm i mean so i mean is there even any point in having virtual topology because if it's like that the scheduler inside the vm will never know all these things so how is this all supposed to work well one idea is to configure the system at the host level so that the scheduler inside the vm does not need to have in fact if each particular vcpu of each vm only and always run on a specific pcpu on the host then all the uncertainty about virtual to physical cpus relationship and mappings just goes away therefore if we know that for example vcpus 0 and 1 of vm1 will always run on pcpu 0 and 1 of the host and that p0 and p1 are two threads of a core then it sure makes sense to have the scheduler in vm1 working in the same way as if v0 and v1 were threads of the same physical core and yes if we provide it with this information by means of defining virtual topology for vm decisions make according to such a topology we likely have a positive effect on performance scalability inside vm1 itself let's look again at the host a little bit better so if we also configure the system in such a way that the vcpus of each of our vm's run in this joint subset of physical cpus then we are doing what is called dedicated resource partitioning for the vm's what about host tasks that are not vcpus well ideally you would isolate your vcpus from any interference including the one coming from host tasks however if the system is only devoted to running virtual machines the interference from regular host tasks would hopefully be small or maybe it is enough to shield the vcpus from just a few of them and in that case such configuration can still be addressed to as dedicated resource partitioning so this is how in my experience at least the topic of whether or not a vm should have a virtual topology is typically dealt with basically we use and we recommend giving a vm a virtual topology if and only if we have dedicated resource partitioning and yeah by the way how dedicated resource partitioning is implemented is by means of vcpu pinning and also memory pinning they both can be configured from libvert as shown for example in this slide in case you want to implement vcpu pinning but in such a way that the virtual topology of the vm will match the physical topology of the host these might be slightly tricky at times doable of course but i suggest having some pills against headache in fact kimo picks up the vcpus in order and puts them in place inside the vm topology on the other end the physical cpu id is numbering not only is interesting but it also it is also different between a system and another one as an example you can see here the physical cpu numbering scheme in an amd epic server and on the right what we had to do to achieve a properly matching virtual topology in a okay yes as already said this is the kimo and libvert default virtual topology for your vm if you don't define one yourself as you can see it is a flat one with no dependencies and no sharing of computational resources or caches and well after all something has to be used as default i guess and it is a good idea making it flat as we do not know in advance the characteristic of the hardware where one would want to run the vm whether or not there will be resource partitioning and so on and so forth maybe one thing to note is that a configuration like this where all cpu's are full sockets is not really so common in hardware but we will get to these later in the presentation okay enough introduction didn't i say that i wanted to talk about these try to wake up function well let's do it it is surprise surprise one of the functions that in the linux kernel is responsible for doing the work of waking up a task when such an event happens it happens on a cpu which we will call the wake up cpu the working task needs to go in a scheduler's ranking more precisely as soon as the cpu where the task needs to run is identified and we will call it the target cpu the working task needs to be put in its ranking then the target cpu must be somehow notified that there is a new task for it and if the cpu was idle probably the task will just run immediately as shown in this if on the other end the target cpu was not idle then the newly working task may or may not run immediately depending on whether or not it will preempt the other task running there as shown in this other example now in order to highlight the impact of the topology in the task wake up path let's ask the help of ftrace and tracemd in fact if we trace the wake up path we first of all find the event about task 31 which is waking up we also see that the event itself happened on cpu p0 and that the task t1 wants to run on cpu now you see that function called cpu's share cache yes here it is where our beloved topology comes into play basically we check whether the wake up cpu and the target cpu share the llc which is typical and if they do like in this case then p0 takes the spin lock of p2's ranku and put t1 directly inside it this is reasonable as probably both the ranku and the spin lock of p2's ranku will be present in the shared l3 cache already and even if they are not there they do belong there the sense that bringing them in most likely does not mean fetching them from another l3 cache and to deal with coherence and all that is related to that it is also still p0 so they wake up cpu that can check whether either a preemption is necessary or p2 needs to be for instance in this case p2 was idle and since it is monitoring the scheduling flag with literally the monitor instructions instruction waking it up from idle only requires for p0 to set that flag let's now look at what happens if there is not any shared l3 cache between wake up and target cpu well t1 still wakes up on p0 and it now wants to go accessing directly p0 from p0 the ranku of p3 is out of question in fact mean bringing in p0's l3 cache data from another l3 cache and have the cpu have to deal with cache coherency and stuff like that which works of course but is not as efficient and as convenient as before therefore we basically stash t1 in a wake up list pre wakes up and goes picking up t1 from the wake up list itself and start running it so why are we talking about all this well i just think that this is a rather nice example of how the system topology might actually have effects which goes beyond just the ones that one okay this was all about bare metal but we are at kevian virtualization shall we look at the virtualization case so as we have seen it is all about that function called cpu's shared cache the virtual cpu's of our vm's share an l3 cache a few years ago the answer would have been an outright no that is because back then kimu was not including any l3 cache in the description of the virtual topology now it does and interestingly enough the reason why it was out that was exactly that behavior of try to wake up that i just showed but the fact that we have an l3 cache in there does not mean that it is shared between all vcpu's that depends on the virtual topology for instance with the default virtual topology no no virtual cpu shares any cache with any other on the other end with a different virtual topology that one may define like one where all the vcpu's are defined as cores of the same socket then yes they do so let's redo what we have done on bare metal which is trace the wake up of a task but this time inside a vm and let's do it for a vm with the default topology basically means that no matter which one is the wake up cpu and which other is the target vcpu then they share an l3 cache so the trace is in fact similar to the bear shared and in fact we see the wake list there the inter vcpu notification mechanism is different though as in this case we do need not that even in the case when p2 so the target cpu is busy things are pretty much the same with the only exception then t1 may or may not run immediately there that depends on the results of check preempt core which needs to be called needs to happen on if we switch to another virtual topology so that now wake up vcpu and target vcpu share a virtual l3 cache we see that as it was happening on bare metal already the wake up vcpu is now putting the task directly in the rank of the target pretty much everything is the same even if the target vcpu is currently busy not however that it is the wake up vcpu that is important when we check what happens if that preemption check tells us that the newly woken task t1 should not preempt t2 that is currently running in fact in that case thanks to the fact that we were able to do the check from the wake up vcpu and since we already have put the proper the t1 in the proper rank q there is nothing else that we need to do so basically with respect to the case where the default virtual topology was used we are saving sending an ipi she is always a good thing especially considering that it would have been a kind of a useless ipi so vmx it and disturbing the target vcpu for nothing as noris scheduling is really you know so can we please have always the virtual topology with share the l3 cache one would think one may think well remember that the kennel in the vm was behaving like we saw in the traces because we told it that the involved virtual cpu's were sharing a virtual electric where does the actual data that was accessed resides for example when the wake up vcpu put the task directly inside the target vcpu rank q where was that rank q located in the real system inside which l3 cache was it really inside the l3 cache of the physical cpu's where both wake up and target vcpu were running well yes for example in this example that is shown in this slide yes also in this other example so even if it was the target and wake up cpu shared in this other example however no they may not so the whole point that i am trying to make is this one we are used to consider providing a vm with a virtual topology only when we are able to do dedicated resource partitioning with a one to one pinning of vcpu's to however what if for example we managed to guarantee for each of our vm's even if the cpu moves around vcpu's that they always stay inside an llc domain which most typically would they benefit in such a situation from having a virtual topology defined different than the default one and if yes which one so these are all open questions and one would need some experimental analysis and some benchmarking in order to try to answer to them actually i have done some benchmarks so i have used a xeon platinum platform for that with 96 cpu's arranged in two nodes 24 cores and two threads the benchmarks were running at the same time inside one and then four and then 12 and then 18 vm's the vm's add 12 vcpu's each meaning that with 12 vm's we were having as the hostess pcpu's while with 18 vm's we were in overload and i used mmtest as a benchmarking suite as it is some really big shameless self advertising it is growing some really nice virtualization benchmarking capability so i have run and am still running several benchmarks these ones are just the three ones that i will be talking about in this presentation so i used akbench with a varying number of thread groups i used the pipe benchmark from perf where two tasks are exchanging messages in a tight loop using a pipe and i used skedbench with a varying number of one to check the performance with different configurations in terms of how the resource partitioning is implemented basically we want to check the effectiveness of various ways of trying to keep each vm running on a specific subset of physical cpu's so the ones that share an entry cache so that we can hopefully benefit from the more cache sharing friendly vcpu so far i have done that uh the granularity of numanodes and so i have run the benchmarks with the default pinning configuration which is not pinning at all then i have enabled numadi which in theory should work as a mean of at least keeping each vm on one numanode then i have added some pinning but only pinning the vms to numanodes so all the vcpu's of each vm were pinned to all the vcpu's of a specific numanode and then i have also looked at the dedicated resource partitioning with one to one pinning case even just for reference as far as vm topologies go of course i benchmarked the default one which we can see here for a vm with eight vcpu's then i checked an all cores topology so that all the vcpu's do share an entry cache but not much else and i finally also looked at topology with both cores and threads theoretically speaking if we really managed to reliably keep a vm numanode these two topologies here define a shared entry cache should be able to take advantage also in the one to one pinning case this last topology here is the one that let us achieve the perfect one to one mapping between physical and virtual topology now to the results for akbench this is a comparison of all the possible combinations of all the tested configurations and topologies when running only one vm on the host on the x axis there is the number of threads grouped like bench on the y axis the average it seems that the red line with full dots is almost always the best and it corresponds to per no per numanode eight cores in one socket there are also other combinations of pinning and topology that are able to achieve good performance but it appears quite evident that the default topology with its eight sockets is pretty much always the worst when moving to 12 vms which means that we are saturating the cpu capacity of the host things do not change much now it is the one to one pinning configurations that provide the best results but only if also a topology with a shared entry cache among the vcpus per node results follow closely and show they show the same pattern and trends in fact the line that corresponds to one to one and per node pinning but with the default topology are the yellow one with empty squares and the blue one with x axis and they are not looking good we can also look at the per node configuration in some more details still with still for the 12 vms case from this view it is quite easy to see that among the three tested topologies the one with eight cores and the one with four cores and two threads are pretty much always largely better than changing angle one more time we see the confirmation that if we fix the topology to one socket and eight cores the one to one pinning configuration is the best for this benchmark but the significantly less stringent per node pinning configuration is really really close it is also interesting to note that the number of configuration is instead it could have been expected that the number put in place are the fact of per node pinning configuration and then achieve similarly good results but this is not happening and this I guess probably deserves for the investigation finally if we check what happens when we aust with 18 vms which means a total of 144 virtual cpus over 96 physical cpus the trend is confirmed the default topology especially at higher thread blue scad bench however shows us a slightly different picture in fact if we look straight at the behavior of the per node pinning configuration this time with the various topologies we see that in this case the default topology is actually the one performing the best both with a moderate load of four vms and at full capacity with 12 vms and this is also true in case we check the one-to-one pinning there are stingly so pinning to the vcpus one-to-one to the pcpus and also making the vm topology exactly much the aust one is not only performing worse than for example the default topology it is actually performing the worst of all configurations and this is a little bit strange and I think this also deserves being investigated a little bit at least the per pipe results here the performance seems to be entirely as we can see from how the data points show up in fact both with one and four vms the eight cores topology leaves basically everyone else whatever the pinning strategy is interestingly enough the default topology is not the worst performing one these times as the four cores and two threads actually and this is exactly the same the trend is confirmed here for the 12 vc vms hey I hope you did not have enough of graphs at this point because I have another one I have the one that I promised at the beginning of the talk I wanted to also talk about so this is the stream benchmark run inside a vm that was tuned to have the same performance as the host and as you can see from the graph it does that very well for three out of four operations of the benchmark for the copy operation we apparently have tuned the vm too well because it goes sensibly faster than the host so this took us especially a former colleague of mine some serious ed scratching back then but after a while we found out these so basically while performing copy inside the vm non temporal prefetch instructions were used on the other end the optimization was not being taken up by our configuration for stream was a little bit special I have to admit we were using some large array in memory and this is not special for stream but also quite a lot of threads and also this behavior was observed on a system running gilip c version and in such a version of the library there is a threshold that is computed in order to decide whether or not to use non temporal prefetch is in store in the way the threshold is computed takes into account the sides of the l3 cache therefore what was happening was that on the metal the sides of the main copies was just below the threshold and so in the vm it was above but the sides of the main copy was the same it was the threshold that in the vm it was smaller in fact the physical cpu had 64 megabytes of l3 cache in total on the other end in the vm we were using the kimu default emulated cache which is reported to the vm as being 16 megabytes and having so many virtual cpus with a so small l3 cache resulted in an unrealistically low threshold in the vm which allowed the vm to use the optimization even if it should not be used so the solution to an issue like this is to make sure that the vm is provided with a meaningful cache topology in terms of also cache sizes in this case it was easy enough fixing our situation by just using the cache pass through mode as i said specific heuristics that computes the threshold are not even there any longer in more recent versions of gbc however the issue is general meaning that having only the 16 megabytes or full cache pass through available in kimu means that we can for example end up creating a vm with just a few cpus and a giant cache which is not something that really exists in actual art some other threshold either in gilipc or somewhere else which is instead designed with what exists in actual hardware in mind may cause us other problems therefore i now am wondering whether this might mean that we need to put in place mechanisms for describing a virtual cache hierarchy with sizes and all its other details and make it part of this i guess so i have recently so l1tf being reported as vulnerable inside a big vm not inside the vm so not the crazily scary virtualization variant of l1tf this is the one tf that is trivially so how come the vm the answer lies in checking a less cpu inside the vm the last entry of the again it is somewhat related to topology i would say in fact while the host has 46 bits available for virtual addresses kimu which is fine because the address of the last portion of isovaram is representable on 42 bits as soon as you take one out for implement so this would be yet another of those cases where we richer and more flexible way of expressing the virtual topology to be fair kim and the weird support that is currently missing forcing people to if i had to draw some early conclusions from these ongoing activity of mine about investigating virtual topologies i would say that physical topology has more effects on the behavior and on the performance of a computer system that one may think and in virtualization when it comes to virtual topology this is actually even more also it is worth at least according to me enhancing kvm kimu and libvert in such a way that they will become able to more accurately describe and represent all the aspects of the physical topology it is sure more code maintain and maybe i don't know more parameters to kimu which definitely is not in need of such a thing but at the end of the day software running inside the virtual machine both at the kernel or at the user level may either depend or really highly change its behavior if we miss and while more benchmarks are definitely necessary in order to be conclusive it is probably the case that virtual topology is not really only relevant when the access to the host resources instead when configuring a system especially if some resource partitioning is being applied but even if not in an exclusive way we should probably think that whether this allow us to define virtual topology for the vms different than the default one and check whether that let us maybe reach better performance and this concludes my talk here in this slide you can find some information about me and my contacts in case you want to reach out and now thanks again for attending


What's going on everybody got Kyle here with late in sports cards, and we are ripping three boxes of 2023 prism football All three of these come in for mr. Eric W Good luck Eric. Let's see what we got sir See what we got sir a too Got Larry Hunter and Nick after this as well guys not too long in the queue for you We want to get something going should be like 30 minutes or so like 30 minutes or so Let's go Eric come on Let's see some of that that guy that won won the game in Texas yesterday. You got a bill more furniture Spencer It's true Sounds like we're getting there we're getting there JK Dobbins. We got a Brian breeze. So be a silver rookie Otto out of Clemson for New Orleans Spencer you going to the game Zach Evans We do need some more first baskets to hit what about first touchdown the Lions game Spencer. That's your expertise What we thinking? Desmond Ritter prismatic and so 125 Deandre Swift or the Eagles Tillman and Jalen Hyatt Hey, let's go Spencer We got two in the last couple days See you on Wednesday. You were ready to ready to hang it up and we got a run going got a run going God, I'm cold and sunny. It's a 75 there on the green scope Take it's like 600 Yeah, that's what Jayce was saying the other day. I remember that You said he's comparing prices of the Bucks game versus the Lions game. It is quite drastic. It's quite a difference Yeah, it makes sense though first ever playoff game at Fortville. I get it to 249 Jalen Phillips Devon weather spoon and Man Got a silver olave on the hype and auto is gonna be a 75 green scope rookie out of Jaren Hall Rookie QB for the Vikings Kyron Williams first touchdown. I don't hate that at all. I don't like that at all and it's Sam LaPorta That guy is good, man That guy is very good Is he a bonaconda to 225 on the purple ice? Can't see and Chase Brown. Let's go Rams. Yeah, the only thing I have right now is I Bought a couple points both ways I got tackers to ten and a half and then I got the Rams to seven and a half figure that was a good start a Good start silver coin Williams. We got some 149 Joey Bosa red wave. I despise that Lucas Van Ness Fair enough fair enough. All right. Who's the who's the first basket? I'm taking then Spencer. Good luck here. Eric got a throwback my homie Little throwback 2012 prism Patrick my homes and Calvin Austin to 75 green scope Cam Smith DTR Silver is Sean Clifford on the rookie And we got sauce to 249 Sauce Gardner, I don't either. I don't either. So just throw out a random name. We'll see if it hits Figure the Rams. Oh man blow out the purple ice at 225 is on reddick for the Paris Johnson power to 49 Portals be John on the silver And purple power is gonna be Darius Davis rookie for the Chargers Pro Bowl cake returner actually Darius Davis Jamir Gibbs one of the few rookie Pro Bowl. There's actually he was he was one of them all pro as well It's a lockdown foyer of the woken and Kyren Williams That might be a sign right there right as Sean says it's 175 if you want to donate All right one box down good luck here Eric box to Good luck Eric. Come on now. Let's see a black finite Little color blast manga No, that's true mellow isn't it not a whole lot else for sure For sure not a whole lot else Wonder who they get as a coach man Wonder who they get as a coach. There's a lot of teams that need some coaching right now They're getting hard ball hard ball the silver Jordan Addison this one there Vikings on the silver So 225 Harrison Smith People eaters It's on Harrison Billy be going to LA I don't know man. I just feel like he's he's on the east coast. I feel like you should just End it. So 99 we got Tyler Scott on the blue ice Like she just retire Sam Laporta rookie. I mean You will find a job though. So you can see why he would why he wouldn't someone will hire him for sure a Couple different teams probably be ready for it There's a mojo. It's gonna be DJ shark To 25 on the all-purpose and a navy camo right behind it It's a little number pack here chart to 25 and Ryan Tannehill also to 25 on the navy camo Back to back to who cards the 25 lines legend. You like the thumbnail today Spencer Lockdown chase young go Rams And there's a Khalif Raymond to 175 for the Lions Back to hypers for both the Rams and the Lions were tied CD lamb and this will be Jacobi Myers on the veteran auto Jacobi for the Raiders Kj Henry I Couldn't think of anybody who was a On the Cowboys currently that was a former Packer player But I got or the opposite the currently on the Cowboys or currently the Packers that was a former Cowboy The other three I got couldn't think of one of those though. It's a 149 Austin Echler kind of like playing the Immaculate Grid trying to make the Trying to make the thumbnail today. That's right that pass man that passed the Mac to One four or two forty now. We got Minka on the purple or the orange the orange Man, yeah, Micah, I don't know. I don't know I haven't been the biggest fan of Mike McCarthy over the years the 225 James Cook Haven't been too impressed Jameer Gibbs on the rookie fireworks of Kenny Pickett on the silver and redemption Demption we've seen a while. It's gonna be Devon a chain on the rookie autographs red wave. E to 149 On a chain J. Caner More packs in box to Yeah, I know that pass was something else man They'd made like three cards in luminance of Mack Jones getting pushed in the dirt there There's Zach Harrison a 175 rookie for the Falcons messed up Like three different cards of it So good And that was quite a play So for Derek Henry and there's Baker Baker may feel the one for our cannons fire cannons indeed dub tomorrow dub tomorrow You don't I don't think so. No, I don't think so. I don't think saps trying to so Roll out there alone Say nice throwback rookie is CJ Stroud Here we go. Mr. Eric. I don't work on the 2012 throwback Man got himself a a W yesterday in the playoffs. It's a 99 cmack Now what's up shady be John and what up sherry? Yeah, yeah, we know shady I Don't think so Spencer I don't believe so. I saw you with Herman Moore yesterday though. I did see that. All right box three. Mr. Eric How are you doing today shady? What's going on shady? You? Sean did say earlier today that the bills are gonna win the Super Bowl. Yeah, I don't tell shady, but yeah I have a feeling Got a orange wave gave Davis for the Beals There's a time to 60 Yeah, I know I love that extension Jordan Addison rookie very have about that extension a lot of teams were looking looking out his way for sure bills win the Super Bowl called it out. Oh Man called it now There's a Josh Allen fireworks for the bills. Oh, man, and he a decayed in 99 the cards always tell Is a AR nice Anthony Richardson base or Solari cards will always tell you Really brew a blue out of a blaster. No way Dude, the blues are so hard to hit the blues in the reds from prison. Wow. Yeah, that's that's very nice Holy cow hit that all purpose him and Jace Even just the 225 got Evan Ingram.  That is yeah, that is very nice. No Rams Let's go Spencer and Jace Yeah, the blues and the reds are super short printed in those You hit CJ, huh? Damn It's about as good as you could do in a blaster. No, you said you were gonna sell them all Why we didn't on the silver rookie case shambu take for the Patriots. I'm glad we didn't sell them all the show Key on white I don't think so. No blasters Blasters Retail Chase Brown went for 200 in the same parallel really. So yeah, that's all right Stephon Gilmore and red weight is gonna be the 149 T Higgins. That's dope. Chris Rodriguez Duane Johnson Extra cut piece there Sean wants it Yeah, you better you better send it out 99 on the blue ice. Yeah Myself Sean clean it for you. You'll definitely get it back take Dell on the rookie base Definitely get it back. So that's Conlon's showing great service. I'd say even you might even more than that Spencer with well with what the Prizes are going for I think even more than that. Those blues and reds from retail are impossible Really, they're impossible to hit to 125 some on jp run. Hey impossible There's a no Connell on the rookie Blaster. Yeah Blasters they hold some good stuff man. It's a tough chase, but it's yeah, you can do it There's a silver rookie Trey Tucker Trey Tucker silver for the Raiders Well, at least we made up for last week about this time you were saying you spent a hundred bucks and got nothing So I'm glad we made up for that for this week. It's how it goes dude. Let's go. Let's go. It's how it goes Silver Jake Hainer on the rookie and orange wave is Jalen waddle eat eat Dolphins is 60. Yeah, and hidden hooker. I'm done with the eats for now. He said Herman Moore is awesome. Yeah Yes, I'm getting a good day Spencer sounds like a good Saturday There you go. We get a lion's win today. Spencer's gonna have the weekend of his life Let's go rams and hooker and to 190 not me got Christian Watson It's pook on the rookie Tyler Scott and Jason didn't tell me about that Spencer. What that? Yeah 225 Derek Henry, I'm over it. I really should will Anderson rookie and last back here. Good luck. Is there I was over Yeah, right way to 149 on the back is gonna be David Bakhtiyari for the Packers Michael Mayer and DJ Turner Alrighty there, Mr. Eric that'll do it for your three boxes of prism. Appreciate you as always my man We will get those right out to you, sir


Marketing and media has become fundamentally a data science business. We strike that balance by having data at the core of everything we do from which we derive insights. Workshopping is really important to be able to take the data and the information that we have available to us, which is we have far more than we need. You have to know what part of that data, what are the insights, and what are the insights that are actionable. Thinking at data allows me to determine whether a hard sale should be made or a soft sale should be made. Any marketing should be outward in. We should be listening to the customer in terms of the need state they are in and then give them the answer. That dictates what the cadence of our message is, what I'm bringing forward in information. If you're ready to make a purchase, we won't miss that opportunity to present that product to you. But if you're not at that stage, I want to walk that journey with you. That's how we empathize using data.


Good morning. Thank you, everyone. I'm sure my fellow commissioners will do the same. We just wish to thank you all for hanging in there, continuing to be just such great team members. Thanks. Commissioner Cameron. Good morning. And I am here. Michelle Bryan. Morning. I'm here. Wish us in again. Good morning, everybody here. And commissioner Stephens. Good morning, everybody. Okay. Thank you. And in the mind of this meeting being recorded and it is being held virtual technology because Governor Baker and clearing a state of emergency did provide relief from the open meeting law provisions that miss to conduct this. We've appreciated that throughout this time. We'll get started on a on a meeting of the week when tomorrow. It's not lost on us. Then this is two weeks trending where we've had three meetings. That takes a lot of effort on everyone's part. Of course, the commissioners year dedication is is clearly seen, but all the work that's going on behind the scenes may not always be known, but it was appreciated by all of us. So thank you. We'll get started the calling to order public meeting number 79 of our agenda setting meetings today is Wednesday, June 24th. 1002 a.m. And we have minutes week today. We do not have minutes ready. And I'm not sure if that will be later on, maybe at the not tomorrow, but even next week, given all of our meetings, correct? Ma'am chair, we do have the June 10th meetings. They were distributed in the packet.  I have to say, I did not print them out. So that's okay. Can I just take a quick Let's let's I'm going to have to just take a quick look. Could we maybe move this to the agendas right after the agenda planning notes? Sure. If I could review them and I'll just pull them up. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that, Shara. My apologies. Yes. Okay. Karen, start with you on the notes. Okay. So administrative update, I think we should always, you know, keep that on the agenda. I think giving the commission an update on the plans for the reopening, which at the earliest, according to governors Baker guidelines would be on July 6 would be helpful and just a general update on what staff is doing would be helpful. If there's anything else, the commissioners would like me to brief them on at the public meeting tomorrow. Speak up, let me know and I'll take care of that as well. I'm wondering Karen about racing. Maybe Alex is going to get to that, but the guidelines is Alex on July 6. So for tomorrow, I'm just thinking July 2. That might, maybe we'll wait to just see if that gets brought up. Commissioner Cameron, maybe down the meeting, but we have tomorrow's meeting and then a July 2 meeting. So let's just keep a note of that. I'm just not sure if it falls under you, Karen, or if it falls under Alex separately. Tom. Yes, good morning. Good morning. We do have one issue to bring to your attention. It has arisen at multiple properties. And we have a recommendation that an emergency reg change be considered to address it. That relates to the allowance of employees from licensee sister properties coming into aid in the reopenings without having to undergo the familiar employee licensing and registration process. You may recall that there's an existing provision of the regulations. That's its section 134.03. It's paragraph two that allowed for this arrangement during the pre opening phase of all of the casinos, but it limited those individuals stay for up to 30 days past the issuance of the operation certificates. So it does not really apply to the present situation, but with a few amendments to those provisions, the same arrangement could be permitted for the reopenings were now we now have before us. So that is the proposal. This is an op. There is an option though to address this in a slightly different way. You'll also recall that the commission is authorized to exempt certain gaming and giving service employees by job description from the registration requirement. So that is something you could consider, though it's important to note that many of the individuals who we understand would be coming in would not actually be in the gaming service employee category. So that's why it doesn't feel like that is necessarily the best approach, but it is an option. But that's why we're we're recommending the emergency reg change where we do have that infrastructure for pre opening and allowing employees of sister properties to come in. And the reg just by way of quick background without getting into all of the details, you'll recall requires that those individuals be identified in advance that they were special identifications. They'd be in good standing in their home jurisdictions and that they're accompanied by a mass license or registered employee if they're going to go into any restricted areas. So there's a whole procedure in place to address these individuals who again we do understand and I see Bill down there. Bill can explain who these types of individuals who are likely to be included in this category if that would be helpful. But we think with a few tweaks to the existing regs, we could we could make that happen quickly if that's the commission's preference. And I can comment that the procedure we used for the opening of the casinos and the reg that as it was designed was very successful and very helpful for the original openings of the casinos. So my recommendation would certainly be to mirror that for these reopenings that we just didn't have any idea would be coming. So my suggestion is to put something quickly on the agenda to do the emergency reg. I think it made a lot of sense in the original openings and certainly translates to the situation. Do we have any special considerations given COVID-19? I think the the issue there we'd have to if people are coming from out of state, we'd have to look at out of state guidelines and how that would work and make sure that that complies. So the more notice we give the licensees on those requirements, the better. There's the specifically, Madam Chair, the 14-day self quarantine language that has come up that we would certainly need to remind the licensees of that they need to be mindful of and factor that into any such plans. But that's, you know, that's so that's that's the regulatory side of the proposal. I mean, there are certainly those practical considerations as well as to whether it could actually work. When would you suggest that gets marked up, Karen? I think that this is something that could be done very quickly. So if the commission is open to it, we could do something, you know, do a special meeting, maybe Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. If you didn't, if we don't have a commission meeting on Thursday, depending on the schedule, we have us. We do have a commission meeting on Thursday. July set is for the budget and other matters. Yes, we do. So why don't we just do it on that date? Is that sufficiently early enough? Well, I mean, we're just dealing with a couple of days because I wouldn't have this. I suppose the earlier, the better, just if there is some consideration to the quarantine requirement. But we are just basically giving the licensees this option and then they would have to understand that this is something that they would have to do in accordance with any Massachusetts procedures required by the governor. So they could prepare for it in advance knowing that this is going to be on the agenda. I'll let you figure out what we need to just just let me know if you want to go earlier and mark up like a Tuesday or something. Okay. Okay. 30th. Is that fine with you fellow commissioners? Yes, that's fine. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Anything else, Todd? Yes, ma'am. There's just one other thing I just wanted to bring to your attention as many of you may know, we're reviewing a number of variants, potential requests and or compliance type issues related to the regulations. It as you may also recall within 138.02 there are provisions that allow the executive director to address variants request and changes to approve systems of internal controls on her own in assuming that the request is related to the internal controls. It appears as though they can all be addressed by the executive director. We're in the process of going through all those. So since we now have this July 2nd date, if there are any that require the commission's attention, perhaps we can bring them to you on that date for your review in any event. I'm sorry. I just wondered when you say that it appears that she can, is there a judgment call in terms of when the commission has to act and when the executive director has to act because you might want to explain that. Oh, sure. I'd be happy to go through that. I think the rules are clear as to when the executive director can act versus when the commission needs to act. And I think the good news is we have an infrastructure to cover both situations. You'll you remember that of course there's a broad variance provision that allows the commission to grant the variance from pretty much any regulation provided that a number of conditions are met that it's in the public interest. It wouldn't do any harm, etc. But in recognition of the breadth of the internal control systems and the need at times to be nimble and allow the licensees to make certain changes. The commission included a special variance provision within 138, which is the internal control section that allows the executive director to sign off on certain changes or modifications. And there's two categories of changes or modifications requested will come in. There are those that are compliant with the regulations, meaning that there was a non-prescriptive requirement that the licensee just wants to change. So they previously told us they were going to do it one way and now they're saying we'd like to do it another way, but we never told them how they had to do it. So as long as the executive director finds that it's essentially the equivalent or it won't reduce the level of control over that particular area, the executive director can approve it on her own. The second category fits into requests that are non-conforming with the regulations, meaning that there is a prescriptive requirement in 138 that says you shall do it this way. And they are essentially coming in, the licensee would come in and say, well, we can't do it that way exactly, but here's what we propose and the executive director can still allow that. And I just want to make sure I get the language correct upon a finding that either it's at least equivalent to the regulatory provision or that it's likely to achieve the same outcome as the provision contained in 138. So there are standards set out in the regulations that the executive director has to apply to all of these requests. And we have looked at these and we feel like we can handle most of them, if not all of them internally. Mr. Band, Mr. Cain are going to just communicate with the licensees to make sure we have a clear understanding of exactly what their requests are so that we can weigh in on them. It would certainly be our intention to prepare a memo or some other type of communication for the commissioner. So you could see clearly what the requests were and what the executive director's action was. But my in raising just on that, I've actually, I think I mean to be sort of publicly to executive director Wells is that we, I think it's we would want to share that publicly, even if it's, you know, we don't take formal action because I do think there's public interest in these particular variances carrying some of your head. So and then maybe that's what you were saying that it will be a public share, not just internal share. Of course, there's just the one underlying theme that I always like to just bring to everyone's attention is that when it comes to internal controls, there are certain confidentiality concerns that may attach to some of them. There's certainly a way to share at least in a general sense what these adjustments would be, but we may need to just be careful about getting into too much detail when it comes to internal control submissions and not oversharing. We don't want to compromise. The commission probably should be really quite aware of the internal control. So if it's, if it can't be made public, we understand, but, you know, as long as the commissioners know what they are, that's fine. Absolutely. But, you know, with that said, we're in a public meeting and we will, of course, comply with all the public records requirements. So absolutely. We're completely upfront about what we're doing and why we're doing it and we would tell someone specifically why we, if we weren't able to disclose exactly the details of a change, why it was that we weren't able to do that. You know, there are non-disclosure agreements with all the licensees that include the internal controls. Right. And those are all public documents. So everyone has had a chance to look at the fact that internal controls themselves are exempt from public disclosure. Thank you. You know, so anyway, that's just an underlying. Yeah. Yeah. And I just, we, I detailed that just so everybody knows the process. I've been, you know, kept abreast of this, but I want to make sure everyone knows in this instance, typically the executive director will sign off on these variances a matter of course, but just because there's been such, you know, a lens on this particular matter during this time, we can be probably just bring it to the public's attention with a little bit more sunshine than normal. But otherwise it's really quite ordinary course of business. Absolutely. And I would just add, by the way, there are a number of racing procedures that we're looking at as well and it appears as though most of those can be done internally as well. But I would just add that maybe on that July second date, there may be a need to have a look at some of those to things like the Lasix administration procedure and drug testing and things like that. But we're looking at them and we will be able to brief you on all of that. So Todd, do you know when we would put that on the agenda? Well, I don't necessarily think that needs to be on the agenda because it appears as though we may be able to just make certain modifications to our internal procedures that don't affect the regulatory compliance. Just to ensure virus related protections, things like that. I'm sorry, were you speaking about the horse racing procedure? Oh yes, I'm sorry, were you speaking of something else? I'm talking about the original variances, just some kind of a report where we may not take action on, but we're sharing the process. Would you be ready for that July 2nd, Karen? I think that's the plan. Okay, so that, thanks. Excellent. Any other issues besides regulations, Todd, legal issues then? There are other things that may come up, but they're on the agenda setting agenda so we can maybe get to them in that course. In the divorce, okay. Thank you, and thanks for helping us understand that. Thank you. We have a meeting tomorrow, so that is on our agenda. It's actually hard to think about, but tomorrow we will have a game sense impact report. We already have that on our agenda that was posted yesterday morning. Thanks to Mary and Jamie and Austin's great efforts. So, Mark, Elaine and Teresa, I know you're ready for that. And the same with items, item number four, correct? That's right. Yes, we're ready for that as well. Thank you so much.  I know that Mary and Joe have been conducting their two by twos and huge thank you. Joe and Mary had Commissioner O'Brien and me in the two by two and it was an extensive conversation for which we thank you for your time. So very, very good work, but we're going to be all set for tomorrow. Everybody should pack their lunch, get ready. It's going to be a good lengthy meeting, but an incredibly important one. It is our goal that we do complete this work tomorrow and not extend it to July 2nd. There are people who are on some vacation plans around the 4th to the extent that vacations are a reality. We want to support that right now. So I think we can get, I think it's absolutely achievable tomorrow.  Yes. Not in their head. We're all in. We're all in, Joe. And as a reminder to the staff, there is a 9.30 start tomorrow. So it's a little different. We're going to get going at 9.30 and get this done. I think that was a really good reminder to all the commissioners too. I think I just said it to my husband. Can you remind me tomorrow is a 9.30 starting? And I realized that he's not Jamie. He said, don't, don't bank on me. Um, so 9.30 start, and it's going to be an excellent start with, with some exciting, exciting news on our end in terms of hearing also from Mark and Elaine and Teresa. So looking forward to those reports and then all in on community mitigation. And I am assuming right now, Karen, do you have anything that we can, that we now given how busy this week's been that we didn't anticipate for tomorrow that we would need to, I think we've really covered all the key points that we needed to get done this week. The, um, you know, it was, it was a busy week and a lot accomplished. So, okay. So we should now set. Excellent. Um, all right. Then, um, moving on then taking number six out. That's my reasonable expectation that we will be complete that discussion. Then we're moving on to number, number seven on July 2nd. And I am going to ask that go under review given, I have had a chance to review Todd's edits, but I haven't had a chance to sit down and meet with Bruce and, um, Todd on this subject. I want to do more of my editing. And I just, right now, given our June 30th deadlines personally have not had the bandwidth to do that. I'll put it under review because I'm not sure what day in July I would be available given I'm having adult children visit safely. Um, so if everybody will just allow me that and then Bruce and Todd, we can have a discussion and then our next agenda setting, I can be more realistic. This is that fair. Okay. Moving on to number eight. We have our budget, which will be our, our big item for July 2nd. If we're all set, Derek, hi Derek. Good morning. Good morning. How are you madam chair and commissioners? Um, yes, we should be set. Um, we put it up the communications team already posted it for us on Friday for public comment, um, comment to do by Tuesday. I think close a business. Um, so we'll be able to review those and have a discussion. You know, I should comment, uh, I'm sure my fellow commissioners, you see it too, but you know, right away popped up on LinkedIn that those public comments are being sought. So, you know, kudos to Elaine and Austin and now, um, we're, you know, making sure that we reach out through different channels to assure that the public sees our request. So it'll be all set for July 2nd. I'm looking forward to it, Derek. We are. Commissioner Zunica. No, I trust that, uh, people have had a chance to look at it and, uh, had a more, any, any more questions of Derek, but, uh, I think we should be all set. Okay. I don't see any concerns raised by my fellow commissioners.  Madam chair, one other thing just to update everyone. We do have a meeting set with Bruce and Joe and Mary, uh, commissioners Stevens, uh, and Joe and Mary to discuss the item regarding the community mitigation fund charge off. So we'll be able and Todd, so we'll be able to have a, um, good discussion about where we, what our recommendation is. There's, uh, holistically, I think that was really the only item that, that raised a need for extra, extra meeting time. Right, Derek. Correct. And we're having that meeting on Friday. So we should be able to, um, have a good discussion about that. Okay. And if there are any additional questions, of course, any commissioner could reach back to you before, uh, before next Thursday. Just one more thing. Um, Kathy on the budget, um, Derek, did we, uh, get any written comments from licensees or others? Not as of yet that have been forwarded to me, but I will check in with them prior to to see if we're going to have any. Okay. Good point. So it's public comments as well as licensee comments. Correct. Yeah, we're in that cycle, that part of the cycle is it was presented, you know, last time and now we're voting on it. And just to reiterate, though, what we already know is that they have been involved throughout the, the, the budget development, but now you just are asking for more formal comments, right? Correct. Okay. And that will require a vote. Um, number nine, uh, we were looking for just a clarification, a little bit of learning on the ADW and simulcasting. Good morning. Good morning. Um, if there's going to be a lot of things on that agenda for that day, we can postpone it. Um, and I just wanted to get some guidance, um, from the commission, um, it's about what they're looking for and how, um, kind of like, uh, how detailed or how much they're looking for on this. Well, I think I actually made the ask and I, and I wouldn't mind keeping it on this July 2nd. Um, because, uh, you know, the potential for opening, the, uh, our horse racing, but I think Alex, you've been able to describe to me on a high level, and I think that's all we're looking for is, you know, how ADW is conducted in Massachusetts. Um, in terms of how, uh, that, you know, the historic, it's been in place for a long time in that origins, because I'm not sure, particularly, um, as, uh, really jurisdictions across the country consider sports betting that, um, and use of mobile, uh, devices that people understand what ADW is versus simulcasting and, uh, just, you know, and being at the, at the track in betting. So, um, on the, on the live racing. So if you could just give a little bit of a, you know, five minute presentation on what it all means, and then, and then if Chad could just describe the, um, any, the revenue piece from, uh, I think a lady and I raised that question. So it's just, I think could probably be incorporated into Karen's administrative update, um, perhaps. Is that comfortable with that? I don't want you to feel uncomfortable for being prepared for that. Yeah, just a little bit of learning because I think I learned that even among ourselves that there was some confusion. And so, um, let's give you an opportunity to share. Okay. That sounds great. Commissioner Cameron, do you agree? Oh, I agree, but I really thought we were going to have a two hour presentation on this and a white paper that was being prepared. So I, uh, yeah. No, I think it's, I do think it's a good idea because I do think there are a lot of people that don't realize there is a form of mobile betting that occurs now. And, uh, the only thing I would add is, uh, maybe Dr. Lightman, if you could just take a second to kind of explain the difference between a sports bet, uh, mobile and, um, the accounts way during account, how it's a little bit different. Oh, and Commissioner Cameron to be clear, the white paper is due in September. Okay. Thank you for that.  Give a little time, but I think that that's really what I had hoped for just especially. Yeah. As things, you know, be open. That sounds great.  Um, that these, these industries just so, um, you know, it has just so many ins and outs, uh, like, like the ones you just point out, but so many more, um, you know, uh, it would be one thing to consider just to kind of like put in, uh, maybe something like we've done before, uh, a lot of brown box, uh, brown bag lunch or something or some recurring training, not unlike what we're now currently doing on the games, on the rules of the games. Uh, but, uh, and, and again, I don't, I'm not trying to sign up Alex here for a big effort, um, or a white paper or anything like that. Uh, but even if it's an informal gathering, uh, you know, with, with one topic from time to time, uh, it would also go a long way. Well, if I, I don't know how many, how many, uh, two week periods you did that, but it sounds like if you multiply that out, that's a lot of learning that perhaps Commissioner O'Brien and I missed out on. So we're playing catch up. So we'll at least start, we'll start with a small segment on this, um, Alex for next Thursday, but that's a great suggestion and, and, uh, Karen and team, uh, you know, the one thing we all appreciate is any opportunity to learn about, learn from all of the team's expertise. Even, even having, even relearning is really reinforcement is really helpful. So, well, and also cognizant of the fact that we can, all five commissioners attend to a training session and others too. So, right. Yes. Yes. In this instance, I actually would love it to be public mainly because I do think it's of public interest right now to understand that distinction. So thanks, Alex. Yep. And great idea, Commissioner Zuniga. All right. So that will stay on July 2nd. And then, um, item number 10 is scheduled for July 2nd. Karen, I am had asked a little bit more on background on that and I'm wondering if it's really ready for prime time. Yeah, I think that it would make sense to put that off. We can, we don't have to necessarily give a date right now, but, uh, I think, I think we're okay if we want more information to postpone that we can put it under review or pick a date, but either way, I think works for me. Right. I haven't really had a chance to speak with Todd. I'm not sure if my fellow commissioners are interested in getting more, um, you know, either through two by twos or whatever, but just to understand that I touched on it because there was a public hearing earlier on it. But I'd like to maybe we'll just put under review and think about it for our next agenda setting, what particular date we would like. Okay. Okay. Does that make sense, Todd? Sorry, my space partner work. Yes, that, that sounds good. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. So that means all of our work is done. What other items does, does anybody else have for July 2nd?  Um, do we have any other items for July 2nd that I do for racing? If you could move the, um, item number 13, the master of bread breeders, um, request to race at Finger Lakes. Um, Todd and I might have to rework the wording a little bit for Mary Ann, but maybe if we could change it now to, um, request to hold races outside of Massachusetts. Okay. And, um, it's kind of time sensitive because they're trying to get up and going. So if we could move that to the July 2nd meeting, that would be great. It does not need to be discussed tomorrow, Alex. No, we could wait. Okay. Cause we could always amend our, um, agenda. Not that we do that, um, traditionally. Alrighty. So that'll be on July 2nd. I had raised earlier, Alex. Do we need to revisit the guidelines? I'm not sure where we left that in terms of action from the commission. Todd. Um, the guidelines for reopening for, um, the live racing and then the, um, plans for the two simulcasting facilities. Those could also be on for July 2nd. Excellent. For voting. Okay. Any other item for July 2nd? Not hearing anyone to set. Somebody just joined, but no, no further items. Karen, are you all set then? I'm all set. Okay. Um, Mary Ann, right now. Our next day on our notes is July 30th. So it would would normally be 716 if we'd stayed on our normal cadence. 716 would be the next commission meeting. July 8th would be the agenda setting. Okay. Right now, I'm not hearing that we have business needed for July 16th. We will have an opportunity July 8th to revisit that or am I hearing that somebody will be better prepared for the 16th? Madam chair, um, one of the things, you know, that we wanted to discuss, um, it was today a little bit was on the PPC relicensing and I just wanted to ask Loretta if she, um, if she was looking at doing suitability at some point, uh, in the not too distant future and I didn't know if that was going to be ready maybe for the 16th. I'd like to see some kind of a cadence on that. I know that we were thinking today was the day to kind of carve out the schedule, including, um, perhaps think about scheduling the public hearings. Loretta, you're muted. Thank you. Um, I've been relegated to the attic this morning. Uh, so, um, suitability would be ready to go on the 16th. Okay, great. That's good. Can you describe, um, Loretta, Joe and Karen, what other pieces that you, right now we're anticipating suitability, the public hearings. Yeah. Why don't I, why don't I take a stab at that one? Um, so in our letter that we sent out to PPC, there are six pieces that needed to be done in there. We've gotten the first two. We got the application in. We got the fee in. And then, um, the four remaining pieces are the suitability, which is in process and Loretta's been working on that. The next piece is a site visit, um, which I think, uh, Commissioner Zuniga was interested in that and looking at some of the financials on site and things of that nature, um, that, uh, talks about, um, you know, just looking at the physical condition of the plant, uh, you know, uh, any capital improvements and also looking at some financial documents. But I think Loretta had indicated we might actually have those in house, um, to look at. So, um, and I talked with Lance yesterday, he actually indicated that, um, he thought it might be good to do the site visit before they reopen. Um, was if that were to happen, that would have to be scheduled very quick. Um, so that's something all the commissioners should think about doing is that, you know, I just don't know in terms of when you first licensed, of course, um, site visits were mandated. Should we as part of our, I know that the pandemic does, you know, raise concerns, but I wonder if that's something that we should do within the open law restraints? I mean, you could possibly do it as a subset of the commission or in some of the cases where, you know, before opening at both Encore and MGM, we did walk throughs, but taken separately in groups of two. Um, and you know, I don't think in this, there's really any deliberations going on. It's really kind of looking at financial documents and other things and, uh, you know, just looking around and assessing the status of the physical, you know, plants there. So I think you could do it either way, really. Okay, so we can address whether all five of us go or not down the road, but we should be thinking about that for scheduling. So site visit. So, um, the application. Can I mention something on this, on the site visit? The original idea, when we sketched out the, you know, the process, really, this was prior to COVID-19 was that we expected to inspect certain financial records for the property and not take possession because, you know, they could be then a public record. We are, we're almost done. We're not quite done, but we're almost done with the financial piece. We have a meeting set up on Loretta and Monica. And I think given what, what has transpired through the conversations and that draft document, I don't know that there's a huge need for that site visit from a financial perspective. I don't want to just close out the option just yet. But, you know, we've been able to have conversations and inspect documents virtually and that has been a unique process. So, so the financial. So what about the physical piece, Enrique? Well, we are, you know, we're very familiar with it. I guess, coincidentally, you know, inspecting as a reopening will be very appropriate, whether it's part of the relicensing or part of the reopening. And yes, we've done it before in which we stagger our visits. We go to different groups or we only go, you know, to commissioners. Okay. Yeah, I was going to point that out. I didn't think this was a site visit for commissioners to assess the physical plans. I thought it was just on site, hands-on financial records. So the idea of the five of us meeting to go as part of this process was never really what we contemplated. It was never contemplated. Excellent. So it's not so it's more for the financial rather than physical. Okay. Excellent. And I'm glad that you can do it mostly with all the documents that are already available. I knew you were doing that on me. Okay. So good. All right. So those are four items so far. So the next piece of it is the public hearing. And what don't I maybe I can share my screen here and just show you what's in the document. So everybody see that? Yes. Yes. Okay. So the so there's we have the suitability process. We talked about the site visit. We talked about and the public hearing. We talked about convening one or more public hearings in or around Plainville. So right there. I think we probably need to change that. I imagine we will try to do these remotely as we've done with everything. So we need to consider that. But it says the following show apply to each public hearing licensee shall have someone available who has knowledge of the facility. The licensee shall make a presentation that includes historic review of the proceeding license period and a discussion discussion about the future of the gaming establishment in my conversation with Lance. That's pretty generic and he really would like some guidance on what we would really like to see in that presentation. And you know at this point I didn't really have any particular answers for him other than saying we want to you know a good description of the things that have happened over the five year term of the license and you know and so on. But we don't really have particular guidance you know sort of prepared for that. So I think we'll need to have that discussion of what we want that to be. I mean in Enrique without getting into too much substance because we're in a gender setting. Will you be able to work so that you can give guidance perhaps in July 2nd on what's expected or. Yeah yeah I mean I think they already have templates from looking at their portfolios and their annuals that would. That's what I was thinking they could probably draw on their annuals right. Yeah but we can be more specific on the second certainly but yeah that's a good template. Okay yeah that that makes sense Joe. Okay and then the next piece is we want to have certainly notify and hopefully have attend representatives of the host community surrounding communities the I leves and so on. We want to have you know the obviously it's open to the public and we want to have enough we want to give enough notice so the public can submit comments and writing if they choose to do so. So we were thinking that at a minimum we would probably need 3 weeks notice. I think before we would hold the meeting. You know so that we would get out and get out to everybody and I'm going to have to have Mary track down all the contacts and so on of everybody in these areas and you know some of these things may have changed over time and make sure we have all the right people there. You know another question is is this something that we want to do in the evening or is it is it a daytime meeting you know it's easy to do daytime meetings now with zoom and everything I think it you know before licenses were issued and hearings were held they were typically done in the late afternoon early evening so members of the public be there. Maybe that's not as important today as it was you know before these things were licensed and you know well people have experience with a casino there they know you know when there was no casino and you're holding a public hearing maybe the the group of folks who would would be interested in that were you know it was probably might be a little bit more difficult but anyway so that's that's what we need to do and and I guess then the last piece of it is the final review procedure and this would we expect will go similar to what we did with MGM and with on core where each responsible party will you know a big commission meeting each responsible party will present to the commission on the status of compliance and where things are and you can see this is whole laundry list of things that that we look at and you know those you know the on core one was you know several hours and we expected that would be the same that you know to have a good full analysis of everything that's been happening. But I guess you know right now I guess we wanted to sort of take the temperature of the commission on on how quickly you want to move on this. You know is this something do we want to do we want to be a little bit more methodical and say let's get the facility open and then try to schedule these things and if we do that that may push us out you know some period of time. You know I think from staff level we can move as as quickly as as you want to move. We want to check in and you know see how much band with our licensees have to you know to be putting these presentations together and I'm sure there's going to be some additional document requests and other things as we you know sort of delve into this these evaluations. So I guess with that I'd ask I'd ask the commissioners where where you know how quickly or how slowly you'd like to move on this. Gail. Well it seems to me that there isn't a great urgency it's not like we have information that there are some things that are you know really problematic to the commission and it would seem to me that they the licensee would need all hands on deck reopening. So I have no problem being methodical and making sure both of us have the bandwidth to really do this properly. Commissioner Brian my name. Yeah I would agree I think you look at the meetings we've had the last couple of weeks we sort of have something more imminent to focus on and then I know I know working remotely is fantastic and people are accessible but I also do want to acknowledge there's still a rhythm to the summer and getting people and getting everybody to be able to do what they need to do including the guests queued up for meetings. I just think we need to be cognizant of that too and this Gail said it's not you know pressing that we you know. Commissioner Stafford fast on it. Joe if you could just take down the. Thanks. Booze. Yeah I know I would agree we both our licensees and our team have a lot on their plate right now and there's additional things that we're asking Lance and his team to have all together in preparation for the hearing. You know that's that's really going to come secondary right to getting the facility opened safely so but just to note you know I was Joe raised the question of what we might be looking for and I know we'll talk about this at another meeting but as much as we want it I wanted them to reflect on what they've done during the previous five years of the license I would really be encouraged to see what plans they can share with us as to the next five years operating the licenses part of that public presentation but I'm in complete agreement you know let's let's do it as both our teams have the bandwidth to pull a public meeting together and I'm okay. Yeah same same thing you know it's a we'll have to calibrate little Goldilocks whatever works that's not you know there's no need to weigh on necessarily but it's all about the bandwidth and other priorities so we keep going. Right I feel the same I feel August is going to be the reopening occurs in the so the timeline that we're imagining it to occur August is going to be a critically important month for the licensee I would say the public hearing will need a little bit of time as you point out to make sure it's fair and it's achievable and we would want to work with the all the Plainville town officials to make sure it's really a public hearing I think you know you if you may be for the next agenda setting meeting coming up with a proposed timeline for us given how you what you're hearing from the fellow commissioners that might be helpful without holding anyone you know to a particular day but just a sense into September you know we can gauge what might be expected if it's October sounds as though no one would be startled by that I think the process needs to be just really fair for input from the public suspect that it will be given our history it's going to probably be positive but we want to make sure that we give everyone's voices chance to be heard so so I guess I'm hearing then well suitability I think we can still do that when when we need to do it and July 16th we've got that up and so then the next would be the physical the financial and I think maybe commissioners Zuniga you'll be able to report on is that your plan to report on it or just have it completed you know I want to check in with Lorena we have a meeting with Lorena and Monica and I've referred to how you know we've done a report with a short presentation in the past and then you know a more detailed report just distributed to commissioners you know we'll we'll get back to you on this and so that will be part of your overall plan Joe okay and then so what I'm hearing then really for the public hearing in the final review we're talking sort of a maybe a post Labor Day is that is that the sense that I'm getting seems to me that that's where you're likely get the most public input I think August might be a difficult month even though we're more it's still it's a summer month and also I think it's going to be a really busy month for the licensee so kind of unfair to them to have to be prepared for that that's a big piece of work for them to September start feeling a little bit more comfortable everyone yeah all right well that that gives us some direction to go on and I think we'll we'll start working you know we'll start looking at you know obviously the public hearing is going to be a completely separate meeting that won't coincide with the commission meeting so that's right scheduled at it on whatever day we want I suppose and at you know whatever time we deem is appropriate and work with Lance you know work with Lance to see what's going to be best for for him you know they're they're interested in getting this finalized to you know right yep sounds good thank you and Loretta that said July 16th is still okay for you correct it is okay thank you right thanks Joe so that we were on just the idea of what July 16th what business might need to come up on July 16th we started the return to the relicensing process any other item before we move on to number 11 for July 16 stay tuned on the rent maybe it might make sense to combine that with July 30th if we're in and maybe not hold on July 16th meeting Karen let's think about that okay commissioners how do you feel if we have an agenda setting meeting on the 8th maybe we can talk about number 11 but if it's just one item I mean there's no reason why we couldn't do just one item but it might make sense to consolidate here Karen yeah especially giving folks taking vacation things like that we want to give some flexibility to yeah so number 11 mark yeah hi yeah we we are set with that the report is done it's it's actually a brief report looking at magic way for and transitions between wave one and wave four and anticipation of a much much larger report that will will hit later in the year so we're set no question about it are you set for July 30 rather than July 16 I would need to check with Dr. Volberg on on whether or not she could be prepared for for that meeting I I don't think it's right now you think this July 30th though right mark right now I've confirmed with her July 30th but I I certainly can check about July 16th if you would like chair no I think what I'm wondering is if we let's other any other items that people would be prepared for for July 30 so of course we know that items are going to come up yeah you know we know that if there's a potential reopening during this time so it's not likely that we convening if the reopenings occur there might be questions that come up during that time so July 16th is a tentative date in any case I was just thinking if it's a business oriented meeting typical business we might want to consolidate Karen what are you thinking I would I would suggest consolidating one way or the other just for expediency I don't think it matters to 16th the 30 it would bet on schedules probably the 30th it makes sense if we already have Dr. Volberg a schedule she did such a great job dealing with the I think it was a celebratory parade that was going on outside her her home the other day we're all juggling so much when working you did great I think I wanted to go to our college or our high school graduation so let's have a Loretta will move you to the 30th does that make sense anyone yes okay all right we've got number wow under review the independent directors gaining vendor primary yes I'd like to Bill Curtis Kate Hartigan and I are working on that we'd like to keep it under review probably for just a short period we can report to you on the status of the new designations but I'd like a little more time to have us research what would be involved if we expanded the designations of the independent directors you know what to other jurisdictions do what kind of numbers would that mean for our licensing division and investigators and what do we think we might gain for it so gain from it if we did expand so if I can keep it under review with an eye towards working on the research in the near term and then at the next meeting hopefully give give a suggested date okay and then we've got number 13th for the second now Dr. Lightbound number 14 yeah number 14 can stay under review it'll probably be another month or so before Steve's ready to come back with a new schedule of his promotional funds okay mark 15 yes we'll still keep that under review working on it and I think that that'll be in the in the coming months still okay Jill template you're still under review good morning Jill good morning how are you and well thank you already and then compliance I know ongoing process set for you to consider Karen and then commissioner Zunika you and I and Karen spoke at this point it makes sense given all the the economic environment of today to maybe take this off the agenda notes all together the time yes we'll take it off for now maybe with with the expectation that you know we might regroup and do a little special project update maybe on an annual basis something like that at a later time yeah and then we'll just revisit that as a potentially a new item for the agenda but it will take a different course or a different formulation all right excellent any other items for July 30th now or into our August I'm not surprised we have had this is quite we've been going at a pretty rapid pace and the fact that there's been such considerable work done during this time is you know it's a credit to all of you everyone can take a little bit of a deep breath tomorrow is a big meeting wrapped up in July 2nd with another really important meeting I'm aside also Derek is doing meeting other deadlines with respect to internal controls so there's a lot going on and it's okay for everyone to take a good breath I don't know but my watch constantly tells me to do it so that's good so everybody take a breath and we will then reconvene for gender setting on July 8th and everyone can think about their work going forward and how commission can help move those items along now we do need to go back to our minutes though from this morning I've had a chance to look at them of barring any other issue on the notes commissioners I think you're all set thumbs up okay commission camera see thanks all right then let's return to item number 2 on our agenda please here madam chair and always a big shout out to shower for her good work in your packet you have the June 10th agenda setting agenda setting meeting minutes and move their approval as always subject to any corrections for epigraphical errors or any other non-material matters thank you second thank you commissioners and got any questions or comments I've had a chance to look at them no questions for me okay everyone looks all set I'll do a roll call book which I can I show Brian I Mr. Stabbins I which is in a gun and I vote yes sure thank you as always 5-0 you and keeping up a very steady pace so thank you and are there any other items that we need to bring up today we are reconvening tomorrow at 9 30 on our agenda which is posted already on our website hearing none motion to adjourn thank you thank you all right no questions commission camera I Mr. O'Brien I just in a gun I thank you everybody Mr. Stabbins I thanks everybody and thank you I vote yes see you tomorrow thanks everyone for joining us today great work