It has nothing to do with the reputation dustbin - the fact was that no one had been able to establish contact with GP in a year. And Warren still had a contact, and while he was hesitant (fearing exactly a reaction such as this) I pushed for it.
Once the contact was established, an organization with a perfect track record was needed, and AGD was contated.
There are no alignments, AGD was happy to pick up the ball and do what it always does - look out for affiliate rights.
It's that simple.
The issue here is GP, not whether Tom, Dick or Harry established contact for AGD.
Warren knew it would cause a lot of low blows directed at him, and he still acted in the best interest of affiliates.
Usually I count on you to be a voice of reason, Jetset, and I hope this time too, you will be able to stick to the actual issue, the contacting of all affiliates who may have been affected.
That is the issue, and turning this into some mud slinging contest is not in the interest of anyone, not GP, not Microgaming (who was also on board re. AGD) not eCOGRA, and most definitely not the affected affiliates.
So can we please focus on rational, impartial problem resolution?
It appears to me that you are content to dish it out on behalf of CAP but are less happy when someone expresses a conflicting opinion, Dom - and I believe that CAP's past reputation - and its motivation for starting this attack on the resolution initiative - is very relevant to the issue anyway. You started the ball rolling by impugning eCOGRA's reputation and involvement here, don't forget.
I suspect that some posters here have limited knowledge of what the eCOGRA organisation is all about, along with it's not inconsiderable resources and capabilities - particularly in the field of online gambling industry auditing.
I also suspect that there are some who are quick to criticise eCOGRA but have never actually interacted with that organisation directly, which is regrettable, especially when they pose interesting questions that could have useful clarifying answers.
So, much of what we're seeing here is CAP's version of events, courtesy Dom who is presumably passing on Warren Jolly's perspective.
This is a chance for affiliates to turn eCOGRA's undoubted and respected professional expertise to their advantage, and I do not think it is productive at all to dissuade affiliates from making their claims, which is what attacking eCOGRA's involvement runs the risk of doing by trying to discredit the investigation from the get-go.
I'm really looking forward to the full report on the investigations into this issue, where I think GP has already been seen to have been at serious fault, but where I think we may see that there have been other actions by affiliate representative bodies that should be made public, too.
This passage in your posting intrigues me, Dom:
"That is the issue, and turning this into some mud slinging contest is not in the interest of anyone, not GP,
not Microgaming (who was also on board re. AGD) not eCOGRA, and most definitely not the affected affiliates."
Surely if Microgaming (whom several posters here repeatedly claim controls eCOGRA) was 'on board' with a non-eCOGRA solution, that would have been the end of it? Exactly who in MGS was on board?
I want to make one thing clear, here. Whilst I personally distrust CAP after the disclosures and happenings earlier this year, and would personally not recommend their involvement in any way, I have absolutely no beef with AGD other than its lack of judgement (IMHO) in getting involved with the likes of CAP.
I think that involving AGD in the eCOGRA process as a truly respected affiliate-oriented watchdog would be a really good move that would add credibility to the investigation, which is why I would hope to see Andy interact directly with the CEO at eCOGRA before this investigation gets into practical gear.
Does the eCOGRA plan include an effort to contact all affiliates (because it appears that the affiliate information portals do not have confidence that they have sufficient reach) ?.
I don't know - but then I haven't asked eCOGRA directly either - pretty much like everyone else posting here.
Maybe someone with a direct interest should?
My opinion is this:
CAP management is trying to rebuild a shattered reputation (and the lucrative business that goes with it).
The GP issue is a safe, almost tailor made vehicle to get affiliates back to the CAP fold by appearing to bring off a resolution to this major affiliate industry dispute - the groundwork having pretty much already been done.
They've been passed over in favour of an alternative approach to resolving the situation that involves the widely recognised professional auditing services of eCOGRA, which has been working on GP for months, according to some reports.
This does not sit well with CAP - clearly.
Full access to every facet of the Grand Prive Affiliate Program will be given to eCOGRA as a condition for its involvement - and don't forget eCOGRA is also putting itself on the line in such a contentious and sensitive issue as this one.
There will be a full report of exactly how events evolved, and that should prove both cathartic and informative.
