International regulators and policymakers meet in UK to discuss i-gaming

[Vallerius]

The biggest news this week is that the UK's Department of Culture, Media and Sport hosted a conference yesterday where the main goal was to develop a global code of practice regarding online gambling. Delegations from 32 countries, as well as a few online gambling companies, were in attendence.

I wasn't there, but based upon reports I've read and the fact that the summit was organized and led by UK officials I think it's safe to say attendees must have been baraged with evidence supporting that regulations and consumer safeguards are the reasonable approach to the global problem of how to deal with online gambling.

Delegates came from:

Alderney, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Great Britain, Guernsey, Hungary, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Poland, Quebec (Canada), Republic of Ireland, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden

Shamefully, the U.S. did not send any representatives. Heaven forbid the country should actually listen to sound, reasoned arguments from a country like the UK that has far more experience in dealing with online gambling (and reality).

Following the summit, Richard Caborn, who is Minister of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, issued this statement:

"I'm really pleased with the progress made today at the remote gambling summit and I think we now have in place a road map that will lead to better regulated remote gambling across the world. Those present today agreed to cooperate further in a number of key areas to ensure that gambling remains fair and crime free and that vulnerable people are protected."

"We discussed the text of a draft comminuque in detail. Delegates will now take the draft back to their respective governments and we will seek written confirmation of their agreement over the coming weeks."

"The summit also agreed we will follow this up with proposals for an expert working group representative of those countries present today. We will want this to involve wider international institutions, including UNESCO and the global financial sector to advise on the development of worldwide standards for regulation. We hope this will be able to report back by the middle of next year."

-

I just had an e-mail exchange with a friend about what think of the summit. He said to me: "i can't help thinking that, on the surface, it had(s) some meaning; but i have an underlying feeling it did little in the way of accomplishing anything concrete."

I'm a little more optimistic than him though. I told him "I think its a very good thing. I wish I could have been there. There's no way for us to really know how well it went. I like to hope that some delegates went there and got really convinced that global harmonization is necessary and got motivated to make their governments move toward it. But there's no way to know at this point since we couldn't see how their faces responded to the info. Maybe they thought it was all a lot of bullshit. But at any rate, it does seem to me that this is the most rational global solution: to work together to protect consumers and to realize that prohibitions simply are implausible and maybe even dangerous to consumers. I'm always wary of politicians, but maybe they're not as vile in the UK as they are in the US. If that is so then perhaps some concrete things did come of it. At the very least, this whole thing at least accomplished the act of getting delegates from 32 countries together to listen to reasoned arguments that are aimed at the greater good rather than protecting special interests."

What does everybody else think?

[Vallerius]

More links on this:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_...DCMS134_06.htm
DCMS press release about a research study it published in conjunction with the summit

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...431354,00.html-
Last night the summit ended without agreement over minimum international standards for internet gambling. Ministers were hoping to secure a promise from representatives that they would not allow internet gambling to be a source of crime, that they would ensure it should be fair to the consumer and that it should protect children and the vulnerable. A government source denied that this amounted to failure.
“We never expected to get everyone on board in a day and we are delighted that everyone is keen to work together in future. They are arguing over commas, and the final version will not be very different from today’s draft.”

http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...cle1945801.ece
Some critics are skeptical

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6100012.stm
Not a grab for tax dollars