Let's come to that; that's where I'm leading. My view on this legislation is that it basically captures all commercial messages, and then the exceptions kind of pop out anything that shouldn't be there. When I look at some of our international colleagues, the CAN-SPAM, Australia—I think you've used it as an example—Singapore, U.K., New Zealand, they more define it towards direct marketing. They use direct marketing versus that kind of broad consent. I'd like your view on that, but I'm going to come to that, and I've got some more questions, so I want you to just keep that in mind—ours is kind of broad, to keep everything, all commercial electronic messages, versus our international colleagues using direct marketing. I'll use that term to more narrowly define it.
On consent, I'm concerned about some of the narrow provisions, the narrow definitions. So the first question is to compare and contrast our international colleagues who look at direct marketing versus the broad definition we're using. And concerning consent, I think we are narrowly defining it—and you can express your opinion around this—because ours talks about consent being expressed or implied. However, our consent is implied only where the person who sends the message has an existing narrowly defined business or non-business relationship with the person who receives the e-mail. I'll give you some examples of that, but I'll pause for a moment to get your reaction to that.