> -----Original Message-----

> I had a few follow up questions: first, do you disagree with the fact that

> Verisign is a monopoly? 



I do. If you're going to dip in to economic regulatory issues, you need to use relevant terms with precision. A monopoly means a single supplier.  Verisign is not the only supplier of gTLDs. Monopoly does not mean "big" and it does not even mean "larger than anyone else." There are now hundreds of competitors. Verisign's market share declined 6%, from 52.5% to 46.5%, in one year alone (2014 - the most recent year I could find data for easily). Thus, competitive alternatives are making inroads. I think this is the statistic for gTLDs, but obviously COM and NET compete with ccTLDs in many countries as well. If you add ccTLDs, the market share goes down to something like 32%, last time I looked. 



> Second, if having certainty over ownership is the

> goal, why not have a reasonable expectation of renewal with a mandatory

> re-bid, as has been proposed several times in the past? 



I am sorry, but this sounds like an incoherent proposal to me. Describe what it means to have a "reasonable expectation of renewal" and also have a "re-bid"? Perhaps we are using terms differently. To me, a re-bid means that an auction is held and whoever offers the lowest price gets to run the domain. A "reasonable expectation of renewal" means you get to keep the domain without a re-bid unless you do something seriously wrong. You can't have both. Either the TLD is renewed or it is re-bid. 



> Doesn't the competition aspect suffer under the existing presumptive renewal

> framework?



No. Presumptive renewal means that TLD operators who attract business get to benefit from the business they win. This encourages them to compete against other TLDs on price, service or both.  Competition between TLDs is fairly robust now, although obviously those who entered the market 20 years ago have more 



Question for you: should ICANN re-bid the delegation for the .IN ccTLD?