|Received:||4/13/2004 3:27:58 PM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
E.1 2. It's crazy to have more than one "sender" as presently defined under the Act. If I publish an ad by "company A" or one of its affiliate marketers, holding me responsible to be conversant with "company A"'s opt-out list not only makes no sense, but it imposes a crushing compliance burden on my micro-business that is economically unfeasible for me. This also requires me to have access to "company A"'s subscriber list in a fashion I find distasteful. E.2 In "forward to a friend" scenarios, an opt-out link in the mail piece is senseless. The "friend" didn't get the piece from the original promoter, and isn't on that company's list in any fashion. E.4 In today's troubled times, providing the exact physical address of a micro-business's publisher can allow less-than-sane people to know where that publisher is, needlessly exposing him to dangers that I'm sure is not the law's intent. A postal drop should be sufficient, ensuring the safety of the home-office publisher while enabling postal contact. F.1 1. I think a National Do Not Email Registry would be an unenforceable nightmare, and oppose it. F.1 2. I think a bounty system to reward people who can identify the practitioners of UCE so as to lead to their prosecution and being put out of business would be remarkably effective.