Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud the intention of the CAN-SPAM act. It is a big and messy concern. I believe great care and concern needs to be taken with a reward system otherwise we will find ourselves in a witch hunt run by opportunity seekers. At present, I have a list of 10,000 happy subscribers. Yet it only takes one person to put my entire business -- my entire livelihood as a legitimate marketer offering free and commercial information -- in jeopardy. On that note, it seems the one glaring weakness in this legislation is protecting the right of the business owner. What happens when someone reports me as a spammer due to conditions beyond my control? Where are my rights? My legal protection? re: Effectiveness and Enforcement To date, from where I sit, I get just as much SPAM as I ever did. This act has only made the life of the legitimate marketer more challenging and precarious. How would you feel if your entire livelihood -- and possibly more -- could be put in jeorpardy by someone who simply says, "I couldn't figure out how to click on the unsubscribe link so this must be SPAM." It seems this legislation has failed to recognized one chief consideration. There are many legitimate business people making a legitimate -- even very good -- living by sharing product information with people who desire it. The Internet has allowed me to create a home business with very little start up cost. And a key part of this business is my ability to communicate with the subscribers who have asked for more information about the subject I know best. This is a service to this people that enriches their life. Any further decisions or legislation must be made with the consideration that the livelihood of thousands of legitimate businesses -- businesses which pay taxes -- is put in jeopardy when rules and laws are made based on a partial view of the whole picture. I have no problem adhering to legitimate rules which will be enforced for the general good of everyone involved. I also think strong action should be taken on the source of the problem -- people who harvest and sell email addresses. And the public should be educated to the nature of SPAM and how they are responsable in kind. What we do not need is another knee jerk reaction by the government which only serves to keep the general populace implanted in ignorance; an ignorance which rewards a lack of personal responsibility and integrity. SPAM doesn't work for a legitimate business. I have no use for it and no need to resort such practices. And any Internet marketer I know would tell you the same thing. So think twice before placing restrictions on the wrong operations. The welfare of my family is at stake. As is my right to communicate with people who have requested on open channel of communication with me. Sincerely, John R. Barker