GIGse 2014, San Francisco

Current Landscape with Online Gaming Standards  Every iGaming Platform and Remote Gaming System have their own communication API’s  Too many different Regulatory Requirements exist…..:  European Commission, as part of its action plan, is looking into the possibility and need for technical standards in online gaming;  There is no reference point in the industry that co-ordinates globally the communication between online gaming systems Italy France Spain Denmark New Jersey Nevada United Kingdom

Current Situation  Operators have to develop different procedures for different systems which essentially do the same function.  The integration process is slow and costly, affecting time to market.  Systems are becoming intrinsically slow and require more complex enterprise messaging systems  System upgrades lead to different issues with different systems.  Issues with regulators due to misinformation or misinterpretation  Non standard reporting across jurisdictions, or data set/s

Benefits for Operators:  Interoperability between systems of different providers  Improves overall system performance  Reduces business costs (integration, support and maintenance)  Faster time-to-market for new products  Reduces business risks A single cortication process across jurisdictions  Development focused on core products rather than interfaces  More innovation in core products

Benefits To regulators  Helps realize policy objectives  Ensures transparency and achieves an objective regulatory policy  Allows for information sharing between jurisdictions  Allows for enhanced monitoring in same jurisdiction and across jurisdictions of:  Irregular, suspicious betting - match fixing  Collusion and Cheating  Financial Fraud*  Simpler integration and centralization of monitoring functions  To enhance real-time compliance monitoring capabilities  Improves the quality, accuracy and reliability of information that is captured and processed by regulators

GSA Initiative  In 2012 commissioned a report to find out whether standardization was required and what sectors needed it.  Policy Based Standards  Technical Based Standards  In 2013 a survey was sent to the industry and regulatory bodies to help prioritize its deliverables.  It was concluded that the best fit for GSA was to start with a communication standard similar to the G2S/S2S suite developed for the land based EGMs.  In 2013 GSA met with key regulators to set up a special trusted environment for regulators to advise on the new Online Gaming Standard – process is ongoing and spread to Europe

GSA Initiative  In 2013 GSA met with key regulators to set up a special trusted environment for regulators to advise on the new Online Gaming Standard – process is ongoing and spread to Europe  In January 2014 the Online Gaming Committee was set up under the chairmanship of Playtech.  In February 2014 the OGC met in London for the first time with the participation of 12 operators and service providers from the industry.  The committee has an online platform to share the development of different aspects of the draft standard. It meets every four months for the face-to-face meetings  In June 14 the GSA set up a European office to extend coordination of the standard with European regulators.

Workgroups based on Architecture Subsystems

Regulatory Advisory Committee  GSA needs Regulators to participate with the industry to ensure that all the regulatory requirements are included in the standard  RAC is an independent entity in a trusted environment that utilize GSA’s resources.

Moving Forward (To-do list)  Lift the standard from draft to an official release  Develop a testing prototype  To formalize the establishment of Regulators Advisory Committee – Trusted Environment  Training  Official Launch  Set up the OGC Standard Workgroup after the Launch.