Return to tldreport Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: cambler
Date/Time: Sat, November 11, 2000 at 6:01 AM GMT (Fri, November 10, 2000 at 10:01 PM PST)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Reply...

Message:
 

Well, let's see. ICANN's main objection to our financials was based upon an error: they mistakenly took our $450,000 which was listed as cash on hand and considered it our sole capital investment. As we've pointed out, this isn't the case. We've already invested over $1 million already in infrastructure (which is exactly $1 million more than any other applicant for .web), have financial commitments of $2 million now, in two letters of credit. Upon approval, one of those letters is increased to $5 million, and the other has an open limit (subject to need).

ICANN's second objection was in our relying upon revenue for infrastructure in the first quarter. Were we to not have existing infrastructure now, this might be a valid concern. But as it turns out, we have infrastructure now, and can rely on this income. But if this is such a concern, it is irrelevant, as our credit commitments are more than enough to satisfy the need. Remember, again, their criticism was based on the erroneous assumption that our capital was limited to the $450,000 on hand.

Additionally, they compare our finances (again, erroneously) to those of Affilias. The problem here is that they apparently didn't note that Affilias's finances are not credit commitments, but assets of the membership that they don't plan upon drawing. Afilias plans upon 100% debt financing, resulting in 4 years of negative cash flow. Yet this received absolutely no treatment from ICANN at all. Can you explain this to me?

Finally, ICANN states that they disagree with our market projections, yet gives no reason for doing so. Arthur Anderson, in doing their review, gives no evidence other than an opinion. Where is the AA report? Where are their pro formas? Where are their expanded projections? If there is truly a problem here, then let's see it, and we can assess it on the merits. But to simply say, "we don't think these numbers are realistic" is both unprofessional and inaccurate.

And, as an aside, as has been pointed out, almost all other applications shared similarities with ours in which we were criticized, yet the other application was not. Can you explain this to me as well, please?

Christopher Ambler

Christopher Ambler
CTO, Image Online Design, Inc.
The .Web Internet Domain Registry
http://webtld.com


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy