If you've been reading this weblog, ongoing since December, 2000, for any amount of time, you know that I don't often blog about the projects on which I work. This post is that very rare exception. I need your help. I'm attaching to this message a legal brief, filed this afternoon by Verisign in the CFIT litigation. The brief makes two incredible claims. Only the fact that Verisign's lawyers signed the brief under penalty of Rule 11 sanctions makes me doubt myself, so I throw it out to you, my readers, for assistance. The brief is here. Read it and then help me with the following assertions:

(1) Verisign claims that the .COM agreement it signed with Verisign has been in "full force and effect" since it was signed by the parties on March 1, 2006. (p. 1, line 12; p.2 lines 20-21). Is this possibly true? My understanding had been that this agreement would not be "in full force and effect" until approved by the DOC. Has the new funding model been in place for seven months? Did Verisign really make the million dollar payments due on the "effective date" on March 1, 2006?

(2) More importantly, Verisign claims that the DOC approval of the .COM agreement means that Verisign's conduct under that contract cannot be predatory or anti-competitive (p.2, lines 24-25). Even more incredibly, Verisign claims that approval of the .COM agreement means that the agreement "would serve the public interest" (p. 2, line 26). Is Verisign's claim that DOC approval actually means that the new .COM agreement 'serves the public interest' true? I appreciate that this is more argument than fact, but it doesn't even pass the giggle test. My own reading of the DOC approval is that the DOC went out of its way to say that the approval did not say anything about Verisign's antitrust liability, and it certainly didn't  give Verisign the 'public interest' seal of approval. Am I right?

My first impression is that these claims are false...in fact, sanctionably false. Help me. You have my email address...and comment fields are below.