|Received:||7/1/2006 1:30:25 PM|
|Organization:||Weaver Enterprises ( an IBO associated with the Alticor family of companies)|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:Dear FTC: My name is Paul Weaver. I am an Independent Business Owner (IBO) associated with the Quixtar company. I have been associated with the Alticor family of businesses since 1993, first with the Amway Corporation and now with Quixtar Corporation. The process with which I was registered, I believe was effective and informative, but did not need to take 7 or more days. Currently we are required to provide FTC approved forms that contain FTC approved income monies. We present, and the teams we have been a part of, present the Quixtar business plan in accordance with these quidelines; and as a opportunity, that if someone applies work, can achieve in 2 to 5 years or whatever time frame they choose; never as a get-rich-quick opportunity. The way we present the opportunity is really a 3-step informational process: (1) we check interest to see if a potential prospect is looking to make extra income, (2) we present the Quixtar business plan (FTC approved) and then give them more information to take home, and (3) after the potential prospect has had an opportunity to review the business plan, then we proceed to register them as a Quixtar IBO. While these steps may sometimes span a week or two, I feel the requirement to enforce a 7-day "waiting" period will not achieve the desired results you are seeking - to weed out illegal, get-rich-quick schemes. Imposing limitations on those who already follow the rules will not prevent those who operate illegally from changing their ways. What might be more effective is to publish a single page, bulletized list of what makes an illegal business and have that to hand out. Regarding a list of references. I do not agree with this proposed requirement. While character and integrity are very important, the proposed guidelines can violate others privacy rights. What if they have an unpublished phone number for legitament reason? Also, what if some is interested in a small town and there are not 10 people yet to list as references in that town? Or if you don't know 10 other people in business in that town because you live in another state? Our business team does conduct free informational meetings, where we ecourage prospects to take home literature to review it more. At these meetings, most of the time there are more than 10 people that prospects can meet and talk with. I believe that intent is good, yet will not be achieved through this way; by requiring a predefined number of required references. This leads to the proposed litigation list. Listing every little legal issue for a proposed time frame is harmful, not helpful. What if Company (or person - this is not clearly defined) A operates above board, in full compliance with all the laws and then Company (or person B) decides they want to sue Company A because of a stupid reason and then looses the lawsuit...(i.e. Company A is cleared). Publishing this to every potential prospect only serves to hurt Company A who has done no wrong. I propose the following 2 points: (1) define who you are attempting to define as "seller" - is the individual person in business, is it every single person in business (what if you have 100,000s of people?), or is it the "parent" company with which the business owner is working with? and (2) have an FTC maintained database/website that lists - in layman's terms a summary of any court case a company or person has "lost" - not currently involved in or as "won", which anyone can reference. Finally, in regards to financial disclosure. Requiring a financial disclosure of personal income violates a right to privacy. Plus my income from my business has no impact whatsoever on the potential for someone else's income since any person I get started has the potential to earn more than I do. If this was a job where you never earn more than your boss or manager, maybe that would be relevant (would you give out your completed tax forms to anyone you hire?), but with each person owning their own business it has no relevance. Guidelines for potential income, like we already have in place, are more appropriate, in my opinion. Thank you for your time. I do agree with the spirit of what these proposed rules are attempting to do and to summarize my thoughts, applying more limitations to the companies that already follow the rules only ends up hurting them. Especially since those who are, or would break the rules, won't follow them anyway no matter how many rules are created.