Comments:

As a microbusiness, I support the written comments made by the Internal Council of Online Professionals (iCOP). I also believe in the short time this law has been on the books it has proven itself to be unworkable for the average publisher, not just the very small business person such as myself. It was too hastily written with too much emphasis given to how it would make the politicians signing it look good. Now, we will all have to pay an enormous cost (both real and perceived) to define and refine it to a level where we can all admit it will still and always be a failure. The US cannot regulate the actions of foreigners. Period. Therefore we cannot, and will not, ever be able to stop spam through legal means. However, since we have to live with this monstrosity, here, specifically are the three areas I find most burdensome for a business such as mine: --It is virtually impossible for a publisher of any size to comply with the suppression provisions of the law both technically and ethically. --a. Technically, while I could spend an inordinate amount of time manually letting each advertiser know which of my readers wants to opt-out of their ads, I have NO MEANS of knowing whether or not they ever act on my notice. Without a means of policing the policed, how I can I ever know I'm in compliance. --b. I have promised my readers I would not share their information in my own privacy statement. They opt-in to my newsletter on the basis of my promise. To comply with this law, I must put myself in breach of this promise, thereby opening myself to lawsuits. I consider the trust of my readers more important than a law I cannot technically comply with. --Equally important in my opinion is the provision of the law which rewards people for "turning in" spammers has already shown itself as a throwback to one of the more regretable eras in communication history. I can't help but think of the McCarthy era and of the way spiteful and petty competitors have already used this provision to attempt to hurt a rival. I see legal ramifications that are unanswered in that the "accused" and "alleged spammer" is being monetarily punished without due process when his publication is blocked. Let's just admit this one is a failure, take the teeth out of this section and instead suggest that since all computers come with delete keys that the user becomes familiar with where it is and how to use it. Finally, a national "do not email" registry is also wildly absurd on two levels; both practically and technically. There are too many allowable communications, too many ways to slant wording of a message to fit one of the acceptable communications (as we have already seen in our inboxes each day) to ever reach an enforceable definition. The technical obstacles to compliance are the same here as they are with the suppression provision. How am I, as a microbusiness, suppose to be able to keep on top of this list? Given the fact that statistics have shown that a person changes email providers every 3 months, how is a publisher of any size to be expected to comply without being forced to purchase or rent costly software or services to keep on top of this every changing list? A recommendation has been put forth by several publishing and technical groups that each person be assigned an email address, similar to each residence having a mail address. If that becomes reality, then this provision could stand a chance of working. Short of that, I wish you good luck in determining how it could be done. Pull it's teeth and let it die under it's own weight. There's no more political juice to be milked here, and the small businesses of America can't afford to suck on this stone long. Liz Micik the Ordinary Marketer *REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION*