Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. There are so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. While this type of scenario has been implemented with the DO NOT CALL list for telemarketers with some level of success, the Internet introduces far more complex issues to this type of solution than were faced when developing the anti-telemarketing list legislation. Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm to publishers who require EXPLICIT permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list (often called opt-in or Double Opt-in). They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the insurmountable problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. On top of that, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. Spam is far too complex an issue to just legislate against with a knee-jerk reaction. Often, these sorts of laws are being decided by individuals who don't have a CLEAR understanding of the background behind the problem. Particularly when it comes to complex matters like e-commerce. The technological groundings for such a subject are beyond many people without a solid IT background, and I deem it unlikely that individuals making judgement on matters like this would go out and learn ALL the facts AND gain a strong clear understanding of ALL of the issues before making a judgement. My real-world experience dealing with business owners & managers on a daily basis, consulting to them on Internet solutions for their business, is that the vast majority of them really have NO IDEA of the wide-spread implications a complex topic like CANSPAM can bring to their business. Hence, they will often make incorrect decisions that will cost their business lots of money and even potentially cause it lots of damage if they did the wrong thing. Remember, in the eyes of the law, ignorance of that law is NOT an acceptable excuse to break the law, and CANSPAM has enough holes in it to drive a Mack truck through, when ignorant (but intelligent) people start dealing with issues related to communications & marketing via email to their clients & prospects. I was quite surprised at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems, Respectfully, Eran Malloch Western Australia, Australia