INSIGHT IAGA SUMMIT BOSTON - JUNE 27-29, 2022
regulators and suppliers a global baseline across several areas in land-based, online, lottery, and more. GLI Standards are used as a basis in more than 80 per cent of the jurisdictions we serve, but, as stated before, they sometimes have to be changed by the local regulator to uphold their mandate.
What are your views on whether we’ll ever see greater adoption in the future?
Licensing and technology standards will continue to evolve and be more aligned on a global scale, but I think the industry should not be in the position where we dismiss regulator’s needs for local differences where such differences are due to local law or policy. At GLI, we will carry on helping that effort with standards that benefit the industry and by serving as a conduit for conversation between them and regulators all over the world. However, we need to continue to recognise and respect the need of individual, localised policy, and the resulting legislation.
Are industry regulators working together across borders, or is work being conducted in isolation – and where does GLI fit into this process as a force for change/progress?
Yes, at GLI we experience firsthand how regulators work together across borders. Te goal isn’t to make things harder for suppliers or for the industry for no reason; no regulator goes to work every day thinking of how to be a speed bump. Regulators want what’s best for their jurisdictions while upholding local policy and legislative boundaries. We also recognise there is a wide range of experience represented in the regulatory community. Tere are regulated jurisdictions that have been in existence for decades and those that are just forming now, and we understand those differences.
At GLI, we help all regulators as much as we can in several ways, including working closely with the International Association of Gaming Regulators, North American Gaming Regulators Association, Te Tribal Gaming Regulators Association, and individual regulatory bodies who have not joined associations. We also speak with regulators formally and informally worldwide on a weekly basis, and we facilitate in regulators connecting with each other at our roundtable events and through IAGR.
Ultimately, is it wishful thinking that a global licensing system can be developed and adopted?
A realistic goal is for regulators to collect the same data set on licensees so that everyone is drawing facts from the same data pool. Each regulatory body has the right to review common facts and make determinations as to suitability with respect to their own policy. It should also be noted that this is further complicated by the fact that not every country has nationalised gaming policy. For example, Argentina, Canada, Germany, the U.S., and others regulate at the
P50 WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS
“Licensing and technology standards will continue to evolve and be more aligned on a global scale, but I think the industry should not be in the position where we dismiss regulator’s needs for local differences where such
differences are due to local law or policy. At GLI, we will carry on helping that effort with standards that benefit the industry and by serving as a conduit for conversation
between them and regulators all over the world. However, we need to continue to recognise and respect the need of individual, localised policy, and the resulting legislation.”
local provincial, state, and tribal government level. Each of these entities have and are entitled to their own policy and legislation. So, in our view, there could be a global process of fact-finding; however, there should be no single global decision-maker on the suitability question. I can’t imagine a system where one jurisdiction would have to accept the decision- making of another, as it would be a due process issue for regulators and licensees.
At GLI, we have worked very hard for decades to do everything we can to help suppliers and regulators streamline processes as much as possible. For example, we create and publish the GLI Standards Series, which is available for free on our website, and there are hundreds of jurisdictions that have adopted them, either in full or in part.
We have a tool called
Point.Click.Transfer that allows suppliers to quickly transfer previously certified products into jurisdictions who accept the same or similar test results, only testing what is different between the two.
We continually act as a facilitator between regulators and help suppliers interpret nuances in regulation. Tat’s what we can do, and that’s what we have done to help this global process; however, we must recognise that governments make policy, which in turn leads to legislation, and then regulation. Tey are in the best position to understand and implement what is most reflective of their individual local values and needs in the policy they enact.
“At GLI we experience
firsthand how regulators work together across borders. The goal isn’t to make things
harder for suppliers or for the industry for no reason; no
regulator goes to work every day thinking of how to be a speed bump. Regulators want what’s best for their jurisdictions while upholding local policy and legislative boundaries. We also recognize there is a wide range of
experience represented in the regulatory community. There
are regulated jurisdictions that have been in existence for decades and those that are just forming now, and we
understand those differences.”
Where is the intersection of standards and cross-border licensing?
Standards are factual. Tey provide a baseline for development and for testing that’s grounded in fact. We make those standards available for any jurisdiction that wants them. We don’t pressure anyone to adopt them – we simply make them available, and jurisdictions can either adopt them in full or in part.
Te licensing process injects a subjective decision based on legislation. So, if a company or a product meets the standards set forth in testing, this gives a solid base for regulators to then make the next steps in the decision- making process based on individualised legislation, and we should continue to embrace those differences.
It should be noted that regulators make dozens of technology-related policy decisions with regard to the standards that are adopted, and it’s important for those who are developing product to know not only the published rules but those unpublished decisions that form the entire policy in that jurisdiction.
Standards are standards; the licensing decision is informed by the standards, but licensing decision or technology approval ultimately comes down to local decision making by regulators to the best of what they do every day.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
