Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 Commissioners: My name is Jimmy B. Russell. I am an internet marketer. My main website is located at http://www.homewealth.com and I have many affiliate sites. I have been marketing on the internet since 1997. I have educated myself about the internet over the years through hands-on experience in marketing. I am qualified to comment on various issues concerning the CAN-SPAM Act (the Act) because I have first-hand knowledge concerning many of these issues. One idea that I think the Commission needs to keep in mind is that the internet is not just the United States. While the U.S. may have considerable influence around the world in physical space, it is quite a different story in cyberspace on the internet. Here, the U.S. has no definite political or military force and is just “another country” whose citizenship use the internet. Rules and regulations concerning the internet promulgated by lawmakers and agencies in the U.S. may have control over U.S. citizens but are at best “guidelines” for everyone else in the world. Considering the world situation today, I doubt many of the overseas servers that are responsible for the bulk of undesirable Spam such as porn and kiddieporn are going to worry much about any laws made in the United States. No doubt they would love to see the U.S. establish restrictive rules on U.S. users as this would establish a wide-open opportunity for them because restrictive legislation could significantly harm the ability of U.S. businesses to use the internet. While trying to control Spam is good, the Commission should be aware the end cause will not be justified if U.S. businesses and users are subjected to overbearing regulation that is too complicated to abide by and needs a team of attorneys to translate the modified Act. I will agree the CAN-SPAM Act is not a cure-all for every internet problem but it is a workable Act . I have not found it hard to comply with the Act since many of its mandates are common-sense etiquette used by responsible users anyway. To make the Act more specific in many areas may make conditions worse instead of better and the Commission should resist such changes because they are not needed so early in the life of the Act.. The CAN-SPAM Act has only been in effect since January 1 and now is not the time to consider any changes. Internet marketing by use of email has not reached a peak for the year so it is difficult to base changes on events that have only taken place within the last four months. The effects of CAN-SPAM should be monitored closely for the rest of this year. I doubt there will be any serious problems that must be fixed before then and it will give a good insight into what may be needed or overlooked. I respectively submit that the Commission allow the Act to stand status quo until the end of 2004 when a year-end report is due. In the meantime, any changes to the Act before it has a chance to withstand email traffic before the end of the year will be premature and may have a detrimental effect on U.S. businesses which use the internet. Sincerely, Jimmy B. Russell www.homewealth.com *REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION*