You folks are terrific. Nice to go to sleep, wake up a few hours later, and have such a wealth of information in response to my last post. The consensus seems to be that Verisign is saying two things, that aren't related: the contract was signed on March 1, 2006 and is now -- as in just now -- in full force and effect. I suppose I was misreading the statement because I was trying to make the Verisign point make sense in context. CFIT had argued that the DOC approval meant that the conduct alleged in the complaint that could harm consumers was now no longer a potentiality, but a likelihood, and perhaps imminent. Verisign responded with this language about 'signed in March, now in full force and effect,' suggesting, somehow, that the DOC approval did not really alter the state of the things. So if CFIT said the approval was important because it means the agreement is now in effect, and Verisign is really saying the same thing, I'm confused as to what point the company is trying to make. FUD, I suppose. Thanks for all the fish.