Comments:

1. Most spammers won't adhere to the registry. CAN-SPAM enforcement is only now beginning, and tracking down the majority of spammers is difficult. The registry will create a near-impossible enforcement environment. 2. The registry significantly risks being compromised and used to spam. There are numerous ways the data could be obtained by unscrupulous e-mailers. Once compromised, the registry can't be re-secured. 3. A domain-wide suppression option could potentially kill legitimate e-mail marketing. A proposed option is for all domain owners to submit their domains for commercial e-mail exclusion. Such a process would be fraught with misuse. If implemented at the ISP level, this could curtail significant amounts of legitimate e-mail. 4. The proposal contains no exemptions for preexisting business relationships. An exemption for e-mail desired by recipients is necessary to ensure the continued efficacy of e-mail communications. 5. Consumers would have false hopes about less spam. The registry would lead to millions of frustrated consumer complaints but no solution. The FTC would waste resources dealing with complaints rather than enforcing more important aspects of the law. A preemption clause should be considered to ensure state DNE registries aren't created. Technology can and will solve this problem. There's no need for a federal registry. Give us the time and resources, and e-mail can be saved. A few months ago, there was no end to spam in sight. Today, it may be in view. The Internet's open architecture remains the root of the problem. Yet proposals set forth by Microsoft, Yahoo!, and others considered by the Internet Engineering Task Force's (IETF's) Anti-Spam Research Group are potentially easily implemented steps that focus on spam rather than dedicate resources to filter legitimate e-mail. If any or all of these proposals are rolled out in the next year, managing messaging that's not identified or authenticated could be as easy as managing postal mail.