According to the regulation posted by BelleRock, ALL players fall into the "not physically present" category, which required their ID to be verified at once. While this would lose the casino money, there is no "get out" in law for this stance, the requirement begins as soon as the player puts money in, although this is different from "at registration". Clearly, the answer would be this (or similar).
On making the FIRST deposit, the process triggers an Email to the player giving them notice that, if they were to request a cash in, they would be required to produce certain documents. The specific documents required from that player should be listed so that they could prepare them in advance. This at least allows the instant gratification element, but also lets the player see what documents they would be asked for. If the player believes they would not be able to supply these, they have the opportunity to discuss this with the casino, and hopefully soon enough for them not to lose out. If they know they can provide the documents, they could rest easier, and could even send them off in advance for approval while they continue to play.
If the player knows they can provide the listed documents, a further request to have them "notarised" would be an inconvenience, but not an insurmountable obstacle.
While the term quoted and agreed to by players does state that a request for documents could arise, there is no information as to what documents will be accepted. Most players have "documents", but have no idea whether they would be acceptable or not till it is too late. If the casino wants a photo ID, this should be specifically stated by adding to the term "at least one form of ID must include a photo of the holder, and be issued by a government recognised authority". This would inform players who have no photo documents that they would not be able to satisfy this request should it be asked of them, and that they perhaps should not play until they have contacted the casino to see if they would accept other documents (or got themselves a photo document), perhaps even having their non-photo documents notarised, where the notary would be able to have them "physically present" at the time.
Discussing the issue does have value, as it makes casinos aware of problems with this issue, even if they cannot, or are unwilling to, change their procedures.
While requests for notarised documents are infrequent, it was the same for ANY kind of document when I first began to play in 2004. In the future, what is rare now is likely to become common, and raising the issues now will at least help form future procedures, both for casinos and for players.
One problem with players making these documents available in advance is that most casinos don't like this, as they insist not only on documents, but VERY RECENT ONES, so preparing a notarised proof of address could be a waste of money, as in 3 months they will have to get another, and then 3 months later another still.
The industry will still lose players, not at sign-up because they can't play straight away, but because this expanding issue starts to scare away potential new players because they increasingly see this problem being aired.
The best thing players can do now is to prepare to be asked for the following:-
1x Government photo ID, usually drivers licence or passport.
1x separate proof of address, this has to show both the player's name as on the photo ID, as well as the address they live at. A utility bill or bank statement serves this purpose. This can be a problem for those that rent their accommodation, as the utility bills go to the occupant in charge of the property, which is not always going to be the player - such players need to arrange a bill or statement to be sent to them in their own name, but at the rented address.
These two documents are used to tie the name and address together, and against that registered at the casino.
Where cards are used for deposits, images of the cards will almost certainly be requested, and usually a deposit declaration form will need to be signed and sent.
This is the usual MINIMUM standard now, and does not indicate the player is suspected of anything.
Where requests go beyond this, then it is likely that the player has triggered the flags for an enhanced ID check, which may require notarisation of documents, or extra documents, such as a letter from a bank or other institution confirming the player really is a customer, and lives where they say they do (the casino may well contact the institution to confirm the letter is genuine, this is the same as having something "notarised" in terms of the level of security it represents).
Despite casinos being afraid of giving too much away, failure to address the issues will eventually get the media involved once a certain level of complaints is received. Here in the UK, consumer programmes like "Watchdog" investigate such issues and will make the companies accountable. Simply appearing on this programme is enough to seriously dent the credibility of the company, however a story is only featured when a certain level, or severity, of complaints is received, a couple of fraudsters trying it on will not get past the programme researchers, as if they air a bogus complaint, the BBC gets a slap on the wrist, and it's own credibility comes into question.
I believe that online gambling will soon feature on such programes, as it is already heavily promoted through TV adverts and program sponsorship, and most of the country should now be aware that "online casinos" exist, and are considered as an activity as legitimate as going to the local high street bookie.
. IMO the casinos may really require these docs for security purposes but havent given much thought to this issue to make it more palatable to the players. Simply stating that this occurs infrequently is not enough because of the fundamental question: Who knows?
I was just stating my opinion and debating with you because I disagree with some of the points you have made. 
