|Received:||3/18/2004 11:13:21 AM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
Regarding item E.1, these definitions do need to be made more clear. For instance, the law should differentiate between a newsletter provider who includes ad space in the newsletter, and a spam clearinghouse who could send out advertising on behalf of other companies to enable them to dodge the opt-out restriction. Regarding item E.2, I think some clarification is needed on what a "forward-to-a-friend" campaign is. Asking individual consumers to review and forward emails at their discretion should be ok, and it would be difficult to hold a company responsible for whom their emails are forwarded to. However, this rule should not be used as a means for one company to give access to its subscriber list to another company because the company is acting as the "friend" in this transaction. Regarding item E.3, I think that it should be permissible to supply a P.O. box or commercial mail drop as a mailing address for correspondence, provided that the sender also supplies a real, physical address as its place of business. The intent of this rule is to prohibit senders from obscuring their identity, not to impose restrictions on how businesses handle their postal mail. Comments on a National Do Not Email Registry: I think that it would be wrong to place the burden of paying for the right to opt out upon the consumer. Any system proposed to allow a central opt out registry should be financed by licensing fees paid by businesses who wish to market by email.