Comments:

CAN-SPAM Act To Whom this Concerns, I wish to thank you for your effort to address the misuse of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants/private parties to maintain do-not-email lists. The definition of who is responsible to maintain a do-not-email list. The requirement for non-commercial entities/persons to abide to such a list. There are so many serious problems and potential costs associated with this idea. The potential for damage done to consumers and businesses alike is enormous. I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. Requirement to use a do-not-email list will seriously damage many of the legitimate publishers on the Internet. My concern is for harm to publishers and private individuals that refer through a refer a friend program. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to punish, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the problem of not properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. How about for those who 'refer a friend', would they have to respect their friends wishes and put them on a opt-out/do not email list? Would they be banned from further communication with their friend to honor their opt-out/do not email request? I feel the need to state that the use of off-shore bulk email generators is ever increasing and with easy access to 'do not email' addresses this could lead to a very real problem in the near future of those you wish to protect becoming the target of off-shore bulk emailers. Not to mention the new market for these lists of 'do not email' addresses. 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, Mr Anderson Washington State, USA