"There are one or two posters, especially on
WOL who have made it their business to slam this initiative every time the name comes up. They presumably have their reasons for doing this, but it is imo a pity that they are so intent on taking a negative view that they are condemning the organisation before it has had a chance to show what it can do for the player and for the industry.
"I believe most gamblers are reasonable people who will give it that opportunity."
__________________
I'm repeating myself more specifically here - Caruso is one of those to whom I refer. He has started a vendetta against eCOGRA using the spoiling tactic of negative and inaccurate posts about the organisation every time the name of this genuine initiative comes up.
Government regulation and funding (through taxation) for an infrastructure that can support it internationally would be a wonderful thing, but in practical terms this is not even on the horizon.
So the player community is left with largely ineffectual, isolated licensing jurisdictions and the promise of a really good set-up in the UK (which will probably exclude US gamblers out of respect for contrary US views on whether it is better to ban or regulate)
Not a lot of protection. Of course, we have the efforts of the better portals that identify and pillory bad operations, but that is at best an informal solution complementary to a formal, organised structure of inspection and monitoring.
Enter eCOGRA into a market cynical from the adverse failure of several inferior predecessors. It's a daunting prospect.
If a player protection organisation is to do its job it needs an infrastructure and the wherewithal to pay independent third party inspectors and monitors. Where is this money going to come from, the players? Hardly likely.
Some of the more responsible software providers and casino operators, recognising that the present uncontrolled nature of the industry is unfair to players, ultimately not good for business and probably plays into anti-online gaming legislator hands decide to put their money where their mouths are and provide the funding.
Probably recognising that the likes of Caruso would be screaming "Claptrap" negativity, they insist that the organisation is set up in such a way that independent, experienced and respected executives from the land industry have control of the inspection and enforcement process and Seal awards.
"To guarantee eCOGRA's autonomy from software providers and operators, the seals compliance committee is comprised of three independent directors who are not representative of the member software providers or casino operators. These directors are Michael Hirst OBE, former Chairman and CEO of Hilton International; Bill Galston OBE, former Chief Inspector of the Gaming Board for Great Britain; and Frank Catania, a former Assistant Attorney General in the State of New Jersey and former Director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming."
The CEO is directed to report to these independent executives, and considerable money, international expertise and time is spent evolving a set of regulations to control online casinos for the benefit of the player and ultimately their own survival.
This has not cost the playing community a cent, and the system is designed to transcend international boundaries by controlling the casinos themselves so that players everywhere are covered. And that they have a direct line of complaint to eCOGRA if they need it.
Having set up these detailed regulations, eCOGRA is now faced with the problem of credibly implementing them in the many quality casinos that have already seen the value and are keen to submit themselves for inspections.
One of the most experienced international professional business services groups, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, is already widely experienced in the online gambling industry, is an independent third party and is therefore a logical choice to carry out financial probity evaluations, inspect casinos for compliance with the regulations and then monitor their operations. This costs money but eCOGRA is willing to pay to ensure that the system is independently applied.
The first casinos to apply pass the rigorous and genuine inspections and are announced.
The commitment of all these people and the significant sums of money spent are then rudely dismissed by Caruso as "Claptrap" when there is no comparable system available. And to support his argument he claims that the widely respected eCOGRA directors and PwC are not independent.
Already we are seeing top casino groups with good reputations committing to this initiative. Groups that are rarely the subject of complaint and a provider that stands behind their players if casinos fail. More casinos than Alderney or the IOM for example have thus far mustered...and I am confident that more will be coming and from different providers . Some are in inspection right now.
Caruso's dismissive and spoiling tactics of suggesting a presently unattainable regulation by government alternative every time the eCOGRA name comes up is not carrying the issue forward constructively in any way, and I do not have the time to waste on trying to convince such a closed and negative mind otherwise.
The majority of gamblers will sensibly make their own judgements based on what has been presented to them on the message boards, media and at the eCOGRA site, and how eCOGRA performs to their advantage in the years ahead.
Because regardless of the continued attempts to undermine it by Caruso and those who persist in regarding it as just another baseless "marketing" subterfuge, eCOGRA will continue to apply its practical requirements to quality casinos that want to do better business by providing superior service to the players.