It would seem evident that this very issue would not only be germane but indispensable in the resolution of the actual Gambling case. Even having found, the continuous and consistent protestations of the United States notwithstanding, that Gambling was covered by the Commitment, it would surely be necessary to con-sider whether the banning of one form of gambling services, namely Internet gambling, could in itself, according to the first view outlined above and as the Panel found, amount to a ‘zero quota’ on a covered commitment, or whether, in line with the second view, it was simply an origin-neutral internal regulation of the gambling sector pursuant to certain public-policy considerations, no different than, say, a prohibition of gambling on Sundays, or a prohibition of Gambling by Minors, which would still allow nondomestic providers to supply gambling ser-vices in the US and on the same conditions as domestic providers, just as, say, US providers provide gambling services in Macao but are subject to the various regulatory regimes of the local government