Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I believe that Can-Spam can work and I welcome the fact that there are people dedicated to alleviating the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the suppression list proposal as a business owner and a consumer. I do not see suppression lists as the solution to the spam issue. The reason that I personally unsubscribe to newsletters as a consumer never involves the fact that they advertise in these said newsletters. I am aware of the advertising and I welcome it, when I have opted to receive it by subscribing. It is an action that I chose to take and am responsible for. If you make the suppression lists a requirement, you take away my choice as a consumer to receive ads that I choose to receive just because I unsubscribed to a newsletter. Now I am no longer able to receive ads from merchants that I want to receive them from. I would also end up on suppression lists without my knowledge or consent just because the newsletter I unsubcribed to had ads from 3 different merchants in it. If I wanted to be on a suppression list, I believe that should be my choice, not the ezine owner or its merchants. As for business, this could be a disaster. I am currently in the process of starting an affiliate program for my products and this would seriously devastate any efforts I make in this area. This would also end affiliate or commission sales in many respects. When a consumer walks into a store and does not buy from a commissioned salesman, is that consumer put on a list. No, they simply walk away and are free to go back to that particular store whenever they choose to. So many businesses would suffer irreperable damage that I honestly believe they would never recover from. E-commerce will never be the same and the spammers will continue just as they still are right now. This ruling will not stop spammers but it will affect consumers and internet businesses and I urge you to consider the serious consequences of implementing these suppression lists. There has to be another way to deal with spammers. Most of us are legitimate business owners as well as consumers and it would be a sad day indeed if doing business this way was no longer an option. As to "refer-a-friend" campaigns, I still believe that each one of us still has the ability to choose of our own free will. How can businesses be responsible for the actions of the consumer. If a friend refers another friend, then the friend has chosen to act of his own free will and this cannot possibly be controlled by businesses or the FTC. The only other solution is to stop the practice of "refer-a-friend" campaigns completely, however the consumers ability to forward to "friends" would be impossible to control whether it is solicited or unsolicited. Word of mouth is, and always will be, the best advertising a company or product could have and this type of advertising is a suggestion, not an inticement unless it is a mandatory part of purchasing or sharing a product or information. This last method is not one I support. Again I urge you to consider these proposals carefully and with as much consideration as possible for those of us that this will affect. Thank you. Respectfully, Monique Thomas BC, Canada