Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. Specific comments on some of the preceding points: E.2 3. No, these types of marketing campaigns should not have to comply with the Act because each person who forwards the message to another person should be considered as having initiated such a message. E.2 4. This seems to confuse the advertising document (which contains multiple adverts) with each individual product contained therein. If someone wishes, he has the option of opting out from the “document” which contains the “offending” advert. E.2 5. Only if the forwarder is doing so for his commercial benefit, in which case he becomes an “originator.” Forwarding an advert as a favor to a friend should not penalize the original manufacturer/owner as he certainly has no direct knowledge or control over such correspondence. E.2 7. “Do the Act’s requirements reach email messages...” Does this question mean “Should the Act’s requirements include email messages...” ? I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. Because of the many problems and costs associated with this idea and the damage done to consumers and businesses, I urge you to consider this matter carefully. The requirement of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available. My specific concern is related to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. These publishers are self-policing their activities, but CAN-SPAM will probably put them out of business. (This, of course, will have an effect on the availability of "harvestable" mailing lists, but other sources will be utilized by the mailers the Act is trying to eliminate.) The "easily-enforceable" targets of the Act are legitimate businesses, not the real problem groups. The economic repercussion of implementation is staggering as it would affect all levels of commerce. (And would seriously affect governmental budgets, too.) There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers because the list-owner does not know their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. Additionaly, these suppression lists would be prey to the very spammers the Act is aimed at restricting. I feel the problems this ruling could create require the Act's further reconsideration and revision before implementation. Respectfully, Allan Gillespie Mexico City, Mexico