| III) |
Restrictions ¡V any restriction should simply require UK operators to exclude
players from jurisdictions which outlaw play from within their jurisdictions.
|
| |
|
| IV) |
Actions before legislative changes ¡V there must be avenues of interpretation
which could free-off the current inhibitions.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| I) |
Racing would not view favourably a prohibition on foreign punters betting on
British Horse racing.
|
| |
|
| II) |
Taking action should be a priority considering the accelerating pace of
technological change.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| I) |
Legislation ¡V primary legislation would be needed for the establishment of
Internet gaming sites in Great Britain.
|
| |
|
| II) |
Urgency ¡V BISL believes that if no action is taken to control Internet gaming
now, it will be too late once the industry is showing a real downturn.
|
| |
|
| III) |
British operators and residents ¡V restricting British Operators to offering
gaming to only British residents, would be to drive operators offshore.
|
| |
|
| IV) |
BISL believes that a ¡¥British Kite Mark' is the best way forward with
operators then showing a ¡¥seal of approval' from the British Government on
their web-site.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| I) |
Legal Framework for Regulation ¡V Camelot would adhere to the Gaming
Board's analysis concerning current law.
|
| |
|
| II) |
Urgency ¡V should be for anticipatory steps in regulation and legislation.
Rapid rises in Internet usage must be met with appropriate forms of
regulation.
|
| |
|
| III) |
Residence restrictions ¡V Camelot would not support the complete restriction
of British Operators offering gaming to British residents. It should be a
matter of negotiation with the relevant local jurisdictions.
|
| |
|
| IV) |
Action prior to legislative changes ¡V suggest a kite marking of regulated
Internet sites would suggest a route that could be undertaken prior to >>
|