Slotster! said:but with eCogra seemingly being UK based, how does this impact 90% of online players that are from the States and the rest of the world; and subsequently the hotly debated HR4777 bill that's looming? Are eCogra being called in to demonstrate self regulation and the industry's move towards 'fair gaming'? I understand their influence from a player's perspective at an 'ecogra' casino regardless of their location - with such high profile representation, from the MAJOR software providers however, surely this is an ideal opportunity to elevate their importance across the board?
Thanks again!
I'll try to answer this from my own knowledge, although it's probably better directed at eCOGRA itself, Slotster.
I reckon that eCOGRA is UK based for convenience - it's a central location to both Europe and the Americas, although something of a schlep to the Far East. It has every facility that technology can dream up, and that's important I guess when your dealing with fairly hi-tech companies all over the world. The current three software providers are all located in Europe, and two of the independent directors are in the UK (the third, Frank Catania is in the States.)
I asked eCOGRA about lobbying against a US ban once, and I was told that this is not one of their activities, although when requested Beveridge has travelled widely and given advice on the sort of sophisticated regulatory structure that he has developed at eCOGRA in consultation with leading international experts.
eCOGRA has also submitted detailed proposals to the UK Gaming Commission as part of its consultative process. And as you probably know, Beveridge has been a very active player in trying to bring international consistency to regulatory regimes elsewhere, something which is also close to the heart of Tessa Jowall in the UK.
However, US lobbying is not regarded as an eCOGRA priority because the principal focus of eCOGRA is on the player experience (the same applies to the affiliate sector, and that has caused a lot of ill feeling, but is unlikely to change)
IGC is the outfit that is more involved in this area, and it has built up political contacts over the several years it has been doing it. I would imagine that if eCOGRA was asked to demonstrate its contribution it would and certainly could do so.
To sum up, my personal perception is that eCOGRA is intent on concentrating its finite resources on a single overall objective - positioning the right standards of best practice and efficiency at Seal casinos in order to give the player a safer, fairer and more enjoyable gaming experience.
Before I get off the soapbox, I would like to make a point that I think is worth considering.
eCOGRA operations are amongst the most established and biggest in the industry and handle hundreds of thousands perhaps even millions of transactions, and tens of thousands of player experiences daily.
Whilst we all look for perfection - especially in others - there are humans involved and that means that there are screw-ups. Unfortunately, we tend to see the results of those misjudgements and errors concentrated in "Casino Complaints" here and that can give a skewed perception rather than a true picture which is that these complaints, however infuriating and inexcusable are a very, very small percentage of the total amount of activity going on every hour of every day at "Play It Safe" venues around the globe.
What eCOGRA is trying to achieve is the reduction even further of this small percentage. It was not set up to be an all-embracing Internet policeman; it was set up to better the player experience and create a more acceptable industry by improving casino management and conduct.
There are now 76 seal casinos and poker rooms, backed by the biggest software providers in the business and there will undoubtedly be more announced soon if I hear eCOGRA people right. This represents the majority of the available business, and the number of complaints should not be tolerated, but has to be seen in that context too imo.