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