Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Contingencies Legal Proceedings On May 31, 2007, plaintiffs Karen Herbert, et al., on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a complaint against Verisign, m-Qube, Inc., and other defendants alleging that defendants collectively operated an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show “Deal or No Deal” to incur premium text message charges in order to participate in an interactive television promotion called “Lucky Case Game.” The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The defendants' motion to dismiss the Herbert matter was denied by the district court on December 3, 2007 and that ruling was appealed. On July 8, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the district court. Certain defendants had asserted indemnity claims against Verisign in connection with these matters. On July 13, 2011, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter and the defendants, including Verisign, previously reached an agreement in principle to resolve the indemnity claims noted above. The parties have entered into fully documented settlement agreements. Under the agreement to resolve the Herbert case, class members will be able to claim a full refund for premium text message charges incurred entering the Lucky Case Game. Verisign will pay sixty percent of the settlement costs but will receive an approximately $0.5 million contribution towards those costs from a co-defendant as part of the indemnity claim settlement. The Company has accrued for the expected settlement costs, which were not material to its financial condition or results of operations. See Note 4, “Discontinued Operations,” of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2011 Form 10-K. This estimate of the expected settlement costs, by its nature, is based on judgment and currently available information and involves a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the type and nature of the lawsuit, the progress of the lawsuit, and the Company's experience in similar matters. Given the inherent uncertainties involved in litigation, the Company cannot assure you that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not exceed the amount accrued for the settlement costs. The court granted preliminary approval of the Herbert settlement on September 19, 2011 and final approval on December 19, 2011. On March 5, 2012, a complaint entitled Warhanek v. Bidzos, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts derivative claims on behalf of Verisign against current directors D. James Bidzos, William L. Chenevich, Roger H. Moore, Kathleen A. Cote, John D. Roach, Louis A. Simpson, Timothy Tomlinson and a former director, President and Chief Executive Officer Mark D. McLaughlin (the “Director Defendants”). The complaint also asserts one derivative claim against officers and certain former officers Richard H. Goshorn, Christine C. Brennan, and Kevin A. Werner (the “Executive Defendants,” and together with the Director Defendants and nominal defendant Verisign, the “Defendants”). The complaint alleges that the Director Defendants fraudulently obtained shareholder approval of certain incentive-based compensation plans by misrepresenting the tax deductibility of certain compensation paid to Verisign's executive officers, including the Executive Defendants. Verisign adopted and obtained shareholder approval of several incentive-based compensation plans, including a 2010 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (“AICP”), and an Amended and Restated VeriSign, Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (“2006 Plan”) and these plans were submitted to shareholders for approval in the 2010 and 2011 Proxy Statements (the “Proxy Statements”), respectively. The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statements falsely disclosed, or failed to adequately disclose, the material terms under which performance-based compensation would be paid under the AICP and the 2006 Plan. The complaint further alleges that the Proxy Statements falsely represented that certain compensation paid to certain employees in excess of $1 million would be tax deductible. The complaint asserts derivative claims against the Director Defendants for (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act for making false statements in and omitting material facts from the Proxy Statements; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) waste of corporate assets. The complaint asserts an additional derivative claim against the Director Defendants and Executive Defendants for unjust enrichment based on compensation payments they received under the AICP or the 2006 Plan, as disclosed in the Proxy Statements. No demand was made on the Board to institute this action, and the complaint alleges that any such demand would be futile because each director is either interested or lacks independence with respect to the challenges to the AICP and 2006 Plan. The relief sought by the complaint includes, among other things, an order nullifying the shareholder approval of the AICP and the 2006 Plan, an injunction requiring correction of the alleged misrepresentations in the Company's Proxy Statements, and an order requiring equitable accounting, with disgorgement, in favor of the Company for the purported losses it has and will sustain. The Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. Indemnifications In connection with the sale of the Authentication Services business to Symantec in August 2010, the Company has agreed to indemnify Symantec for certain potential legal claims arising from the operation of the Authentication Services business for a period of sixty months after the closing of the sale transaction. The Company's indemnification obligations in this regard are triggered only when indemnifiable claims exceed in the aggregate $4.0 million. Thereafter, the Company is obligated to indemnify Symantec for 50% of all indemnifiable claims. The Company's maximum indemnification obligation with respect to these claims was capped at $125.0 million until February 9, 2012, at which time the cap was reduced to $50.0 million. While certain legal proceedings and related indemnification obligations to which the Company is a party specify the amounts claimed, such claims may not represent reasonably possible losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of the litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated, except in circumstances where an aggregate litigation accrual has been recorded for probable and reasonably estimable loss contingencies. A determination of the amount of accrual required, if any, for these contingencies is made after careful analysis of each matter. The required accrual may change in the future due to new developments in each matter or changes in approach such as a change in settlement strategy in dealing with these matters. The Company does not believe that any such matter currently being reviewed will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Verisign is involved in various other investigations, claims and lawsuits arising in the normal conduct of its business, none of which, in its opinion, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. The Company cannot assure you that it will prevail in any litigation. Regardless of the outcome, any litigation may require the Company to incur significant litigation expense and may result in significant diversion of management attention.

Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On May 31, 2007, plaintiffs Karen Herbert, et al., on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a complaint against Verisign, m-Qube, Inc., and other defendants alleging that defendants collectively operated an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show “Deal or No Deal” to incur premium text message charges in order to participate in an interactive television promotion called “Lucky Case Game.” The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The defendants' motion to dismiss the Herbert matter was denied by the district court on December 3, 2007 and that ruling was appealed. On July 8, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the district court. Certain defendants had asserted indemnity claims against Verisign in connection with these matters.

On July 13, 2011, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter and the defendants, including Verisign, previously reached an agreement in principle to resolve the indemnity claims noted above. The parties have entered into fully documented settlement agreements. Under the agreement to resolve the Herbert case, class members will be able to claim a full refund for premium text message charges incurred entering the Lucky Case Game. Verisign will pay sixty percent of the settlement costs but will receive an approximately $0.5 million contribution towards those costs from a co-defendant as part of the indemnity claim settlement. The Company has accrued for the expected settlement costs, which were not material to its financial condition or results of operations. See Note 4, “Discontinued Operations,” of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2011 Form 10-K. This estimate of the expected settlement costs, by its nature, is based on judgment and currently available information and involves a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the type and nature of the lawsuit, the progress of the lawsuit, and the Company's experience in similar matters. Given the inherent uncertainties involved in litigation, the Company cannot assure you that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not exceed the amount accrued for the settlement costs.

The court granted preliminary approval of the Herbert settlement on September 19, 2011 and final approval on December 19, 2011.

On March 5, 2012, a complaint entitled Warhanek v. Bidzos, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts derivative claims on behalf of Verisign against current directors D. James Bidzos, William L. Chenevich, Roger H. Moore, Kathleen A. Cote, John D. Roach, Louis A. Simpson, Timothy Tomlinson and a former director, President and Chief Executive Officer Mark D. McLaughlin (the “Director Defendants”). The complaint also asserts one derivative claim against officers and certain former officers Richard H. Goshorn, Christine C. Brennan, and Kevin A. Werner (the “Executive Defendants,” and together with the Director Defendants and nominal defendant Verisign, the “Defendants”).

The complaint alleges that the Director Defendants fraudulently obtained shareholder approval of certain incentive-based compensation plans by misrepresenting the tax deductibility of certain compensation paid to Verisign's executive officers, including the Executive Defendants. Verisign adopted and obtained shareholder approval of several incentive-based compensation plans, including a 2010 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (“AICP”), and an Amended and Restated VeriSign, Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (“2006 Plan”) and these plans were submitted to shareholders for approval in the 2010 and 2011 Proxy Statements (the “Proxy Statements”), respectively. The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statements falsely disclosed, or failed to adequately disclose, the material terms under which performance-based compensation would be paid under the AICP and the 2006 Plan. The complaint further alleges that the Proxy Statements falsely represented that certain compensation paid to certain employees in excess of $1 million would be tax deductible.

The complaint asserts derivative claims against the Director Defendants for (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act for making false statements in and omitting material facts from the Proxy Statements; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) waste of corporate assets. The complaint asserts an additional derivative claim against the Director Defendants and Executive Defendants for unjust enrichment based on compensation payments they received under the AICP or the 2006 Plan, as disclosed in the Proxy Statements. No demand was made on the Board to institute this action, and the complaint alleges that any such demand would be futile because each director is either interested or lacks independence with respect to the challenges to the AICP and 2006 Plan. The relief sought by the complaint includes, among other things, an order nullifying the shareholder approval of the AICP and the 2006 Plan, an injunction requiring correction of the alleged misrepresentations in the Company's Proxy Statements, and an order requiring equitable accounting, with disgorgement, in favor of the Company for the purported losses it has and will sustain.

The Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

Indemnifications

In connection with the sale of the Authentication Services business to Symantec in August 2010, the Company has agreed to indemnify Symantec for certain potential legal claims arising from the operation of the Authentication Services business for a period of sixty months after the closing of the sale transaction. The Company's indemnification obligations in this regard are triggered only when indemnifiable claims exceed in the aggregate $4.0 million. Thereafter, the Company is obligated to indemnify Symantec for 50% of all indemnifiable claims. The Company's maximum indemnification obligation with respect to these claims was capped at $125.0 million until February 9, 2012, at which time the cap was reduced to $50.0 million.

While certain legal proceedings and related indemnification obligations to which the Company is a party specify the amounts claimed, such claims may not represent reasonably possible losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of the litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated, except in circumstances where an aggregate litigation accrual has been recorded for probable and reasonably estimable loss contingencies. A determination of the amount of accrual required, if any, for these contingencies is made after careful analysis of each matter. The required accrual may change in the future due to new developments in each matter or changes in approach such as a change in settlement strategy in dealing with these matters. The Company does not believe that any such matter currently being reviewed will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Verisign is involved in various other investigations, claims and lawsuits arising in the normal conduct of its business, none of which, in its opinion, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. The Company cannot assure you that it will prevail in any litigation. Regardless of the outcome, any litigation may require the Company to incur significant litigation expense and may result in significant diversion of management attention.