Comments:

Dear Commissioners, I appreciate the initiative of the commissioners to en-act an up-dated SPAM control act. Yet, I fear our 'free speach' is in jepordy and only you can take the steps required to enforce our rights to communicate via email, without 'undue' hardships on honest, hardworking individuals looking to provide solid permission based email relationships with interested recipeints thereof. Further restrictions, that would otherwise, remove fair and equitable email communications will develop problems and numerous costs associated with such. I therefore urge you to consider this matter very carefully. My specific concern is for the harm to legitimate online newsletter publishers and brick and mortar business owners who require permission from their consumers, prior to adding them to any list. And as such, rely on such permission lists to help with thier on-going legal communications with them. CAN-SPAM was not designed to put out of business the folks that sincerely utilize such email communications with respect with legitamate 'outs' for anyone not wanting to receive such. Yet, most legitimate businesses will substantiate the fact that, permission given by their customers is permission given, indeed. Very few, if non at all, of the permission based email clients ever complain about receiving such email deliveries. The recent CAN-SPAM makes some simple, yet, very effective initiatives that handle the specific descrepancies of SPAM... by requireing 'Adver' on the subject line, having it necessary to show a P.O. box at minimum with a 'required' opt-out service is quite sufficient. I urge the commissioners to 'take-care' when dealing with the freedoms that this great country was founded on. the best, Michael J. Lofton Colorado, USA