The arrangement, then, obviously could encompass an exchange of letters or something. But also, as I mentioned to one other questioner--I don't know which one--I am worried about the attitude of the user-enforcer. They have legislation that says you can enter provided there is a reciprocal provision in the other country's legislation. We don't have it explicitly.
If I go to them and say here's my act, section 60A mirrors yours, it's reciprocal, so let's cooperate, there's no problem. If it doesn't, and we want to do an exchange over there, then they always worry about what's happening on their end. Are they within the focus of their legislation, or are they possibly exposed to people saying they are acting outside their scope? Are they divulging information that they shouldn't, or is this arrangement not sufficient, or not strong enough, because they're not speaking about the arrangements that we are?
Therefore, to overcome this, to put it all aside, we have to know how we both work. They want to see some legislation and then we'll feel free to operate and cooperate. Then we will have an exchange of information and we can both fight spam on both sides of the border. That's the reality we face, and that's why I'm suggesting here to put in section 60A. It will do the trick and we can work cooperatively right off the bat.