Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. If feel however that the Commission must err on the side of caution to protect legitimate small business owners like myself who rely on email to transact business and who use strict opt-in policies. I feel that many of the actions taken by the Commission seriously interfere with my ability to run my business and transact with customers and harm me more than persistant spammers. Regarding the issue of "Forward to a friend" scenerios. These are initiated individuals and are sent to people with whom they have a relationship. Whether there is inducement or not, these kinds of emails should not be included under spam legislation. There are a few market segments that are primarily responsible for almost all spam: online medictions, gaming and pornography. Severe restrictions on the use of email should be placed on these industries in particular so that businesses in other industries like mine who are respectful of email users are not punished for using legitimate commercial communication. I am very concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. There are so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. On top of that, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. My concerns are well expressed at the following site here under the Open Letter to the FTC dated April 13th. http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php 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, Lastly, given the limited resources of typical small businesses, it would be not only impractical, but impossible to maintain lists in conjunction with a National Do Not Mail Registry. Double opt-in is required for any communication from my company so that it is redundant and totally unnecessary to maintain such a National Registry. Again, it is legitimate business that are hurt, not spammers. Respectfully, Eric Brown Ontario, Canada