|Received:||7/3/2006 3:02:18 PM|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:Dear Sir or Ma'am: Presently, the FTC is considering the establishment of some very strong regulations that would greatly effect the expansion of the Quixtar opportunity for the worse. Because of the limited space alloted here, allow me to get to the point. I understand the FTC's point of view and why they are considering this rule. However, the proposed segments of this rule are not feasible. I am confused what the aim of the 7 day waiting period looks to accomplish? My assumption is to ensure that no potential candidate is rushed into any decision that is not in their best interest. However, there is a money back guarantee that accompanies each registration, thus eliminating any risk for a prospect that changes their mind. To establish a 7 day waiting period would greatly slow potential growth within business organizations just to eliminate a risk that is nonexistent. In reference to giving any prospect the references of 10 other IBO's, I feel this segment was not thought out well before being proposed. I certainly don't want my information being given out to just any stranger. I would guess this is so prospects could call to ask for other opinions. Why would a prospect want to call someone they don't even know for an opinion? They can do plenty of opinion gathering on Google. The way that most of our world wide business team operates is with weekly training meetings, which allows prospects to meet other IBO's anyway. Not to mention that we encourage potential candidates to meet other IBO's because of our team atmosphere. But they meet at meetings in the proper professional environment, not by having total strangers call each other on personal family time with private information. A proposal to give every prospect a list of all lawsuits, arbitrations, or other legal claims for the past 10 years involving Quixtar or its IBOs where the plaintiff alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or unfair trade practices – regardless of whether or not the accusation was true would be redundant activity since these claims are already made publicly accessible through credible organizations, such as the BBB. As a matter of fact, BBB and D & B logo icons are attached right to the Quixtar main page to support such investigative inquiries. However, to inform prospects of these accusations even if they are not true is absurd. I challenge the duration this proposal was truly thought about. Why would any company waste time discussing with anyone any inaccurate claims made against them. Inaccurate claims are usually derived by incredible or unreputable sources, not to mention to do so would be very short of slander. Which is a legal offense. The companies that create these issues are dishonest companies that would simply ignore this rule anyway. If it is deemed necessary for an income disclosure to be made, I would recommend simply stating, "average monthly gross income for 'active' IBOs is..." It is unfortunate that these binding regulations are in consideration because of a few dishonest and misleading bodies. I am doing well with this opportunity in my pursuit of business over the last few years. I am making over $60k presently and growing. Even with my side income through this business endeavor, I am making considerably more than the average American in their full time job. Nonetheless, though I can confidently tell people that, I don't. My finances are personal, just as any individual's or company's. In my experience it is irrelevant for someone to know what I have accomplished. Any confident person with common sense understands that their potential is ultimately based off of their ability and it is not based off of my level of success. We explain all potential here based off of the information distributed in the SA-4400.