Interest in Interactive Gaming from the Casino operators

A Workshop Discussion on the topic:

Interactive Gaming in Nevada
held
November 29th & December 6th, 2001

Hosted by:
· IGI, Interactive Gaming Institute of Nevada
· William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Conducted by:
· IGTF, Interactive Gaming Task Force

Facilitators:
· Dr. Pearl Brewer -- Chair of the Hotel Management Department
· Bill Geoghegan - Lodging & Gaming Technology Consulting Inc.

These Workshops benefited from the participation by representatives of twelve of Nevada's leading gaming companies that, combined, hold more than 60 non-restricted resort licenses

The commonly held opinions were:

I. The Definition of Interactive Gaming
· The description provided in AB466 is sufficient to encompass an extensive array of interactive gaming technologies.

II. Nevada and the Brand
A. A casino's own brand is far more significant than the fact that it is located in Nevada.
B. Las Vegas is well-known enough that it could be considered a "brand".
C. Smaller, lesser-known operators would benefit most from being associated with the "Las Vegas brand" or the Nevada jurisdiction.
D. For larger operators, their individual brand carries the credibility.

III. Consensus
A. There is a high degree of interest in implementing Interactive Gaming by operators who would prefer to deal with Nevada, but feel they must consider working within any REGULATED jurisdiction.
B. The operators have a comfort level with the Nevada regulatory and testing process that they see as the world-wide gaming leader.
C. Operators will seek other credible, legal jurisdictions to host Internet sites, if necessary, due to perceived tribulations with licensure procedures, taxes, and speed-to-market.

IV. Regulations
A. Regulations being produced by Nevada gaming control (as specified in the enabling legislation) is a superior solution to legislated regulations (as in New Jersey).
B. Nevada's regulations will set a standard for regulations in other jurisdictions.

V. Federal Issues
A. The Wire Act - and the bills recently introduced by Congress members. Goodlatte and Leach (even in their currently proposed forms) -- would not inhibit the implementation of intra-Nevada interactive gaming.
B. Nevada-only gaming is a sufficient market to justify many operators' entry into interactive gaming.
C. The ability for operators to accept bets from legal jurisdictions outside of the U.S. is desired. This will have to be expressly authorized in Nevada regulations to reassure licensees. It could come after they have had an intra-Nevada test of procedures and systems.

VI. Technology
A. Technology does exist that can provide a "reasonable assurance" of player ID, age verification, and border control.
B. Economic and operational hurdles to implement this technology appear to some to be present. There is a difference of opinion among operators as to the height of those hurdles.

VII. Wireless
· Wireless telecommunications can be a viable means for intra-Nevada interactive gaming; however, several security issues were raised.

VIII. Standards
A. Standards for interaction with some existing sub-systems (banking, player loyalty, etc.) will be necessary.
B. A statewide (ultimately nationwide or global) database that could be shared by regulated IG operators (for black list, gray list, self imposed limits, etc) would be very beneficial.
C. One option that should be explored is the idea of a shared portal for player ID, age and border control.

IX. Additional Conclusions
A. Regulations should be drafted that equally protect the player, the operator, and the financial institutions involved.
B. There was a consensus that the prompt implementation of regulations permitting intra-Nevada and intra-property interactive gaming is a practical, beneficial first step.

X. Next Steps
A. There are important issues related to interactive gaming where the perception of the operators varies significantly with commonly-held public views.
B. Educational "white papers" need to be drafted that articulate and document the factual basis for the views held by those who support implementation of interactive gaming. These papers should be widely distributed to public officials and the media.
C. It is essential that public forums be held which allow technology providers the opportunity to demonstrate and provide proof of the viability of the solutions they offer to various interactive gaming issues.