Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I would like to take the opportunity to make a few comments with regards to the above mentioned Rulemaking Project. Firstly, let me just say that for any serious internet marketer it is only good news that unsolicited email comes under scrutiny. Unsolicited bulk email is a menace and should be fought with any realistic means possible. E. Issuing Regulations Implementing the Act. 1. Responsibility (The "sender" issue) How can anyone other than the actual sender of the email be held responsible for the sending of a message? The keyword here is control. Only the person controlling a message that is sent to a list under this persons control can be held responsible for the email message in question. Opt-out requests can only be directed to this person. "Direct Control Of Distribution" must be the ONLY determining factor for who is a sender of a message. This makes the responsibility clear and manageable for all three parties: The email sender, the advertising merchant and the email receiver. An Opt Out must be directed to the Distributor of the Email, NOT any advertiser in the publication. I cannot in my wildest imagination understand how any advertiser would be able to keep some kind of central suppression list that all subscribers must adhere to. The responsibility for sending of emails can only lie with the actual email distributor, not with any of the participating advertisers. 2. Privacy If I am a subscriber to a publication and choose to opt out from that particular publication I do NOT want my address to be sent to any third party advertisers indicating that I wish to opt out from their other associates' lists. Frankly, I do not even think that this type of re-distribution of opted out addresses would be legal in many jurisdictions. For example, I believe that such practice would be a very serious issue according to the strict European Union privacy laws. Just imagine if these suppression lists would end up in the wrong hands. Apart from the privacy issue I believe that the risk for spam would increase, not decrease, if merchants are required to keep and distribute suppression lists. 3. Administration How would coordination and administration of "merchant opt-out lists" be handled in practice? Many online merchants are very small operations that thrive on the Internet because of the high degree of business automation that is possible in this enviromnent. The administrative burden of coordinating suppression lists for affiliates and advertising partners would effectively put many of these small, legitimate operations out of business, while the "bad guys" (spammers) couldn't care less. The wrong people would be targeted by this type of measures while the illegal operations can continue as usual. So, for all three parties in a typical internet affiliate relationship there are substantial risks with a ruling interpreted in a careless way. Consider these three points carefully: 1. Publisher / Affiliate viewpoint It must be possible to still run legitimate opt-in email publications that contain affiliate ads or other paid advertising. 2. Merchant Viewpoint It must be possible to, as a merchant, still run an affiliate program or buy advertising in publications or engage in other ethically responsible network marketing practices. 3. Subscriber / Customer Viewpoint It must be possible to subscribe to publications (opt-in) and end subscriptions to publications (opt-out) without risking that your contact information is shared with people with whom you have no direct relation. I hope your decisions will be wise and measured. Yours Sincerely, Erik L Frid G Flinckstraat *REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION* Amsterdam The Netherlands