LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
−Removed: As previously disclosed, a subsidiary of Afilias plc (“Afilias”), a competitor and losing bidder in the .web auction, filed a form of arbitration proceeding against ICANN, an Independent Review Process (“IRP”) under ICANN’s bylaws, on November 14, 2018.
−Removed: Afilias alleges that the agreement between Verisign and Nu Dotco, LLC (“NDC”) pertaining to .web violated ICANN’s new gTLD Applicant Guidebook.
−Removed: As a result, Afilias claims that ICANN had a duty to disqualify NDC’s bid and award the .web gTLD to Afilias.
−Removed: Afilias also claims that ICANN would violate its bylaws pertaining to competition by awarding the .web gTLD to Verisign.
−Removed: Afilias amended its IRP request on March 21, 2019 in part to oppose Verisign’s and NDC’s participation in the IRP.
−Removed: A hearing was held on Verisign’s and NDC’s applications for participation and, on February 12, 2020, the IRP panel permitted Verisign and NDC to participate in aspects of the IRP.
−Removed: In early August 2020, the IRP panel held a hearing on Afilias’ claims.
−Removed: The IRP panel delivered its final decision on May 20, 2021.
−Removed: Consistent with Verisign’s position, the IRP panel dismissed Afilias’ claims for relief seeking to invalidate the .web auction and to award the .web TLD to Afilias, concluding that such issues were beyond the IRP panel’s jurisdiction.
−Removed: Furthermore, as Verisign expected, the IRP panel’s ruling recommends that ICANN’s Board of Directors consider the objections made regarding the .web auction and then make a decision on those objections and the delegation of .web .
−Removed: With respect to ICANN, the ruling finds that certain actions and/or inaction by ICANN in response to Afilias’ objections violated aspects of ICANN's bylaws related to transparency and fairness.
−Removed: On June 19, 2021, Afilias filed an application to the IRP panel requesting that it interpret certain terms of, and make certain amendments to, the final decision.
−Removed: Verisign believes Afilias’ application is an unmeritorious request for reconsideration, which is not permitted under the applicable rules.
−Removed: Verisign expects the IRP panel to rule on Afilias’ application in Q4 2021.
−Removed: Verisign anticipates that once the IRP panel has ruled on Afilias’ application, ICANN’s Board will proceed consistent with the IRP panel’s recommendation to consider the objections and make a decision on the delegation of .web .
−Removed: We are also involved in various investigations, claims and lawsuits arising in the normal conduct of our business, none of which, in our opinion, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
+Added: We are involved in various investigations, claims and lawsuits arising in the normal conduct of our business, none of which, in our opinion, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
We cannot assure you that we will prevail in any litigation.
1 unchanged sentence
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.