|Received:||7/10/2006 11:06:51 PM|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:My husband and I have been IBOs with Quixtar/Amway since 1991. I am very concerned about the proposed rule change. I see it as a way for the reputable people being punished for unfair practices by some others. When we registered we were given plenty of info. to help us make our decision about whether the busi. was right for us or not. We still do the same for new people. It is one of a very few places someone can start a small business for about $200. If they are not satisfied, they can get all of their money back simply by asking. Any steps they have to take, we get them the needed info. We make it very clear this is not a fast way to make a million dollars. The SA4400 clearly states the average monthly income and the definition of the necessary terms. You are only rewarded for your performance. If you don't perform, you don't get paid. No one can buy in at a higher level, but if a downline wants to excel, they can earn more than the person who sponsored them. Every business has unhappy people in it. They usually have lots of complaints that all come back to the fact that they did no work and expected great returns. By asking for 10 references before they join, I see that as a "phone tag" nightmare. What happens to people's privacy as well? They may not want to be called by someone they don't know and they may still be new enough that they feel uncomfortable about answering questions about all aspects of the business. In our Quixtar/ InterNet Assoc. meetings, new prospects can talk with as many members as they wish, as many times as they wish. There are plenty of opportunities to talk before they register. America is founded on free enterprise. Please, don't punish us by adding these proposed changes. They will only add a layer of frustration to the business. Why squash the enthusiasm of someone who wants to better themselves. These are the type of people who don't want to be dependent on the government for food, housing, and medical care. They want to do something to get ahead. This is not about entitlement. It is about being fiscally responsible and being a part of the solution, not the problem. Please reconsider this rule. It is not the shoe that fits!!