Dear Mr.
Neeley,
Thank you
for your email.
I had the
opportunity to review the entire document you sent me this morning.
Again, I am sorry for the loss of your domain name, however as I have
previously stated the domain name was not renewed, and was sent back to the
registry.
In
researching Icann’s website further I did find the following statement:
ICANN requires accredited registrars to collect and provide free public
access to the name of the registered domain name and its name servers and
registrar, the date the domain was created and when its registration expires,
and the contact information for the Registered Name Holder, the technical
contact, and the administrative contact. We are mandated by ICANN to
follow the guidelines that they set forth for all domain name
registrars.
Due to the
fact that you state you have a Trademark on the name, you do have the option
of filing a UDRP (Uniform Domain Resolution Policy) with ICANN. I am
including a link for you.
www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm
I hope this
information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
X
XY
From: Curtis
Neeley Jr. [mailto:Plaintiff]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:48
AM
To: X, Y;
AdSense for Domains: Trademarks
Cc: legal@namejet.com
Subject: RE: Network Solutions Executive
Office - SLEEPSPOT.COM [#535961205] Google AdSense for Domains Trademark
Complaint
Ms
x,
I understand ICANN's position and have spoken with them already.
Requiring that an expiration date be publicly available in a whois database is
not a requirement to advertise or publish the expiration dates. Having a
list of dates that are about to expire is not required by any stretch of the
word publish. ICANN does NOT require that Network Solutions publish
any of the information you alleged is required. I expect that you are
not an attorney or an English instructor. I appreciate your empathy and
hope to educate you in a way that you will not find offensive. You
should involve either an attorney or a college level professor to assist you
in determining your next reply. My brain damage erased most of my
memories about most of my advanced degrees. I feel you should seek help
in responding to this matter if you actually believed that Network
Solutions was in any way mandated into committing the fraudulent
violation of my personal data that I had associated with either of my TMs
by ICANN. I believe you will find ICANN as surprised as I was that
nobody has brought this type action already.
The fact that you were not the
first to cybersquat on either of my domains by buying does very little to
excuse a policy of advertising any domain that is about to expire.
It only reduces the amount I have asked Network Solutions to pay for the
cybersquatting they promoted. A business policy of promoting domains
that will soon expire by using a transitive case of the verb expire to say
they are expiring is fraudulent. The very second they expired; the
intellectual property that they once were should no longer
existed. Network Solutions’ calling them "expiring" is a
violation of the rights of the © and TM owner.
Interesting
to see you try to blame ICANN for your actions of copyright and trademark
violating. Please read through the ICANN WHOIS page
today as well as your registry agreement from the past and try to find a
mandate to publish anything. I do not believe you will be able
to STRETCH
it into a permission to publish the times a domain will expire and there is
definitely no mandate. The requirement that registry data be
available in a publicly accessible whois search is what Network Solutions and
the rest of the domain "industry" use to excuse their creation of a
fraudulent value for any domain. Network Solutions then uses
NameJet to
perpetrate the fraud in cooperation with Google. Google then licenses
any domain that is under ten characters and that contain general terms to be a
part of Google "AdSense for Domains". This is an attempt to
turn domain names into another search request. The domain
"industry" is a complete fraud. It is not almost a fraud, but is a fraud
to both advertisers and to consumers. It is a fraud that the Curtis
Neeley Foundation is on a mission to end.
The fraud is like the old fraudulent teachings that the Earth was flat.
If domain expiration dates were not disclosed, the masses would realize that
no domain without a pre-existing business plan or business history is
valuable at all. The search engines of Google and others are
using these frauds well as propagating these frauds to earn
advertiser income by turning domains into just an extension of searches
terms.
I do not believe that I
am so mentally challenged as to be the only person able to see the fraud
that is now the HUGE Internet bubble that will burst when my lawsuit is
resolved. I have not heard from Google today and expect that they feel
they are too big to worry about a paralyzed and Pro Se plaintiff proceeding as
a pauper. Google has less than forty-eight hours to notify me that they
are willing to settle for ten million or greater for their portion of the
actions violating my rights to the TMs that were used in the
United
States for commerce. They state that
since the TMs consisted of general or descriptive terms they were "fair game"
for AdSense. The jury will simply say this claim is NonSense and not
AdSense. I see that they are currently still profiting from the
cybersquatted site sleepspot.com and that it is still for sale. It will
be my duty to add Google after Wednesday at COB. I already fired the
warning shot across their bow.
I give Network solutions till
COB 11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay me greater
than two million dollars.
Without receiving a two million
dollar settlement offer by that time, I will proceed to both
pursue Network Solutions and Google Inc for punitive damages.
The sizes of the awards that will be rewarded by juries might help
spawn support for tort reforms? Network Solutions and Google will be
involved with me in court for the next decade. I was once not
expected to live past 2012 due to my injuries. I now think I will live
much longer. The most common cause of death for persons with my type
injuries is suicide.
I would have
added ICANN to the suit if I were unable to learn from them that they did NOT
require the publishing of personal data that Network Solutions does now with
NameJet. You can see that they tried to address expired domain recovery
by following the link above. No business would EVER want to hide their
registry data from a person searching for whois data. The fact that
Network Solutions now uses NameJet to help propagate a profit from private
registrations is evidence that I will use to bind Network Solutions tightly to
Google as conspirators of NameMedias.com cybersquatting.
Consider this my ONLY nice
offer.
I give Network solutions till
COB 11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay me greater
than two million
dollars.
To assist you in your apparent
confusion about the ICANN requirement Network Solutions so
fraudulently calls a mandate to publish, I will add links to the legal definition
I see online. How can Network Solutions so blatantly call a
requirement that a registrant be available in a WHOIS database an
excuse for a violation of copyrights? I will proceed to sue NameMedia
who took advantage of Network Solutions' violation of my right to make
information about my copyrights publicly
available.
I restate my DEMAND and
try to be absolutely clear. I give Network solutions till COB
11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay greater than
two million dollars.
1,999,999.99 at that time will be an offer I consider only additionally
distressing. Network Solutions makes money by creating a method of
making the WHOIS database not really a WHOIS but a WHENIS. This is a
fraudulent policy that I will seek to end. I include my previous email
to Google to keep Network Solutions from feeling alone in being called a
perpetrator of this
fraud.
The Curtis Neeley
Foundation;
President: Curtis J Neeley Jr,
MFA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley
suffered a severe traumatic brain injury that often very negatively
impacts his communications. He is often perceived as blunt, tactless,
self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a severe disability,
he is determined to continue performing
meaningful art. The Curtis Neeley Foundation is created to preserve
and promote his artistic photographic legacy.
I include Google
Inc. to let them see how serious this
will be. Trying to license the address bar by licensing all
typographical errors and errors where general and descriptive words were
entered in the address bar instead of a Google search request.
Yes - I believe
the lady Network Solutions and Google each hear singing is quite
heavy. I do not think calling her fat is polite.
This will be
published on my blog as an HTML tomorrow at 5 PM.
To further
explain the ICANN's position I will make the fictitious fraud more
obvious.
This is publicly
accessible by anyone with the following URL who checks it with a HTTP
request.
This is exactly
as registry data is MANDATED to exist.
Tomorrow at
COB I will publish it as loud as NameJet does a pending
delete.
Ms
XY, does this help you understand the reality about
what you so FRAUDULANTLY call an ICANN MANDATE better? My test jury
did yesterday.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Curtis
Neeley Jr. [mailto:123@456.321]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 4:14
PM
To: AdSense for Domains:
Trademarks
Subject: RE:
[#535961205] Google AdSense for Domains Trademark
Complaint
BCC: Curtis Neeley Foundation
Board
To: AdSense for Domains:
Trademarks
Subject: RE:
[#535961205] Google AdSense for Domains Trademark Complaint
Google AdSense for Domains:
Trademarks,
I am confident about winning ten million dollars and an order
for Google AdSense for Domains to cease their business policy of
cybersquatting. This is in addition to the ten million I will also win
from NameMedia and Network Solutions. Cybersquatting will be defined as
licensing general or descriptive words as domains to simply run ads or words
that are common typographical errors of a TM domain. Ten million is an
exceptionally small amount. In a recent case in Arkansas, Google
AdSense for Domains settled for seventy million and that was simply to
prevent public education. The public impact of simply educating the
commoners of the policies in place will ruin Google
Inc.
I do not particularly care if you "investigate" my
complaint. You have given me solid proof that Google is reckless in
choosing who they will license a domain from. Thank you for doing
that although I am sure it was inadvertently done and was not your
intent. I would suggest you read over these filings
[07CV3371]. I have read most of
them. It was humorous to watch lawyers devote pages and pages to
the words control and license.
The case number is linked to a case above that I believe you will find
particularly relevant. It particularly addresses the court recently
denying defendants'
motions to dismiss certain of the infringement claims based on arguments that
the domains were not being "used in commerce" and/or did not create the
requisite "likelihood of confusion." Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google, Inc., No.
07CV3371 (N.D. Ill, March 20,
2008). Just google 07CV3371, or use Yahoo, Inc, however, I used the word
google in the previous sentence in its common linguistic verb use
and not in a trademark use. I realize Google Inc, registered the
word with USPTO. It has since become so common a word that it
is no longer a solid ®. I did not earlier and will never
capitalize google when
using it so commonly. Spell check still suggested it as a
capital. 'Nobles' are
hard pressed to recognize us commoners?
Modern Language
Association (MLA):"google." The American
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 06 Nov. 2009.
<Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/google>.
The uses of words above are linked to the online reference I cite.
AdSense will soon learn that googling is a superb action verb we
commoners enjoy. I recommend that Adsense "investigate" using
it. The country you are currently in exists very much as a result of
common people refusing to believe that rights were obtained by birth or
by an ability to pay a filing fee. The document I refer to is
online. I suggest that you google "We the people, in
order" and even link it to save you
typing. Google Inc. so hoped that their use of the noble
USPTO would make a claim of trespassing on commoners TMs
like mine more excusable.
There was a period in the USA where rights COULD be
purchased. Even after declaring independence and fighting a war, it was
not until a bloody civil war that equal
rights were established for men by an Executive Order. No wonder he
only got a penny. It was not till the next century in 1920 with the
passage of the nineteenth amendment that women were allowed to vote. I
wonder how often noble lawyers or noble judges consider that the racial
equality of the commoner with respect to voting preceded the equality of the
right of the female commoner to vote. It was still easier for a
commoner in the United
States to accept a black man as president
than a beautiful white woman. Even in this century. Does
anyone think we really need sixty more years to be led by a
woman?
I hope Google Adsense for Domains legal staff enjoyed the preceding
refresher on law. I only took one law course and have no memories
of it. You might see the over-use of the term commoner. Common law
trademarks have existed longer than the Lanham Act in 2002. I
once suspected that I inadvertently used the circled R -®- with
SleepSpot.com. I should have used © and TM although I was acting only as
a commoner who did not realize only the wealthy could pay to use ®. The
jury I demanded will be of commoners like me who probably will not
understand that either. On further research I had displayed © and
TM only. This was publicly available when Google Inc. first licensed
eartheye.com and sleepspot.com. I copyrighted eartheye.com and
sleepspot.com and they were marketed correctly in use for commerce
several years before Google licensed them with NameMedia. I
believe a jury will recognize this act as a pattern of fraudulent
conduct to create billions in unjust enrichments. No juror will have a domain
"portfolio" running AdSense for domains. Read
that last sentence over and over and over. Hospitality.bet has been
cybersquatted for over ten years. They look like Google ad license even
today but they are disguised very well if they are from Google. A
requirement that Google be named for ads they license will be
demanded.
The next paragraph is linked to the noble USPTO government
site. "Google AdSense for Domains" will not need
to google to find it. I will help in your "investigation" and include
as a link to the USPTO FAQ. Google Adsense for Domains
is welcome to visit my BLOG and view it as HTML or as a signed PDF
Wednesday. Email and HTML are easy to fake and will hold little weight
as evidence. A signed PDF is much easier to validate although not
impossible.
Federal
registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark.
Common law
rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally,
the first to either use a mark in commerce
or file an intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has
the ultimate right to use and registration
They
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I
planned to be a multi-millionaire with SleepSpot.com. I intended to
quickly replace PriceLine.com® as the Internet destination to find a
"Place to Sleep". I would not need Captain Kirk or any other
celebrity. My marketing would make them embarrassed to pay so
much. Read evidence of my first use in commerce in the
United
States in an Internet
jurisdiction here as a webpage. I
saved it as a PDF
even though NameMedia can't
hide this record. Better safe than having evidence hidden I have
learned.
Google
Adsense for Domains chose to entice NameMedia to violate my
TMs. When they did this, I am sure Google Adsense for Domains
used the description of common law trademarks like Google
Adsense for Domains did in the reply where Google Adsense for Domains
attempted to also extort common law TM research for
free. Google Adsense for Domains should have performed a TM
search before licensing either eartheye.com or sleepspot.com to
run Google Adsense for Domains on. The internet
Archive is a neutral party that had proof publicly available for free of
the site and TM first being used in commerce in the
USA. The USA is a
country filled with commoners like the jury members will be. Until
NameMedia placed a spider text on the root of the server that Google
is licensing to hide the evidence they found publicly
available. They were too late. You can see a PDF of the
Internet Archives files that they have now hidden. This act was ANOTHER
malicious act and was an additional copyright violation. Google Inc dba
NameMedia are infringing on my copyright in addition to my TMs. The
courts have already ruled that a request for an order that the spider
text file be removed is reasonable. I have contacted the Internet
Archive already. The files remain and will now be evidence of
NameMedia's pattern of cybersquatting sites they then license these to Google
Inc.
One
needs only to research-"typo-squat" PriceLine.com to see Google
licensing "cybersquatting sites" or ad sites like one from
Oversee.net. The page is Pricelike.com. Being paralyzed and
suffering a stroke requires that I type with one hand. 'K' is so close
to 'N' on a keypad that I made the typo error and discovered a page that is
making money for google running ads for competitors of Priceline.com. I
see AdSense for Domains biting a hand that feeds it.
This is a site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the
same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling. I see
PriceLine paying to be the SPONSORED result. A reasonable juror
will see Google Adsense for Domains violating the ® of the large
Google Inc. advertiser PriceLine.com at Pricelike.com. Can Google
Adsense for Domains say Class Action? I can't do a Class Action Pro
Se. I think Google Adsense for Domains should have already written off a
settlement deal since Vulcan Golf only asked for one million. I
originally asked for ten and even that feels trivial when I see
Google actively
cybersquatting their own advertisers.
Priceline already demonstrates what they think of typo-cybersquatters with the
following eighteen URLS that are aliased to their own
site.
[pricelime.com,
priveline.com,
pricelinr.com,
proceline.com,
pricekine.com,
prixline.com,
pruceline.com,
kriceline.com,
piceline.com,
pricelin.com,
pricerline.com,
prizeline.com,
pricrine.com,
pricelinw.com,
pricekline.com,
pricwline.com,
priceline.net,
priceline.org]
I am sure there are more but I
wanted to quit finding cybersquatters licensed to
Google.
1. http://www.oriceline.com is
another zero width frame of http://usseek.com/search/internet/airline%20tickets This is another site
licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the same
thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling. To
competitors!
2. http://www.lriceline.com/ is a site Google
is licensing without requiring it hide in a frame.
This is another site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell
EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is
selling.
3. http://www.pricesline.com/ is a site Google
is licensing without requiring it hide in a frame. They are
the closest thing to a non-TM-infringing cybersquat that I see because they
run no air travel links.
4. http://www.priceslines.com/
is a site Google is licensing without requiring it hide in a
frame. This is another site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains
to sell EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is
selling.
5. http://www.preceline.com/ Is another ad site Google
is licensing from SEDO. It does not advertise the same thing as
priceline but it is licensed from a company that is already a Google
co-Defendant in the [07CV3371]
case already.
Six licensed Google ad
pages or cybersquats found while looking around one registered
TM.
This email took about thirteen hours to write. It was not a free TM
search. HERE is a public proof that I
was using SleepSpot in commerce that NameMedia can't hide with a robot text
file on the server they are licensing to Google Inc. It is currently not
on the IA site. When I was initially trying to settle out of court with
NameMedia, I offered one domain name in trade. I offered to trade the
domain ozarkphotos.net to them. I was told they wanted better than 2600
for eartheye.com. NameMedia recently requested $2,788 for sleepspot.com
from me directly! See it first used in commerce in a PDF
HERE,
HERE or
HERE with a © and TM
displayed and dated 1999 or in the last
century.10
I am confident about winning ten million dollars and an order
for Google AdSense for Domains to cease their business policy of
cybersquatting. This is addition to the ten million I will also win
from NameMedia and network Solutions. Cybersquatting will be defined as
licensing general or descriptive words simply as domains to run ads or words
that are common typographical errors of a TM domain. Ten million is an
exceptionally small amount. In a recent case in Arkansas Google AdSense
for Domains settled for seventy million and that was simply to prevent
public education. Every URL listed in this email is current as of
11/07/2009. I have saved them all as signed PDFs for use in my
lawsuits.
This will not be published in my BLOG or my protest site online
mentioning Google until Wed 11/18/2009. I will then contact PriceLine,
Vulcan Golf and every other TM violating site I can find. You can find
signed PDFs of SleepSpot.com as they were accessed from the internet Archive
before Google and NameMedia hid them. My protest URL is www.NameMedias.com which is NOT a cybersquat like
Google so often encourages. It is a bona fide first amendment
expression that NameMedia is already aware
of.
The three business days above will let Google's legal and executive staff
have three business days to weigh settling out-of-court for ten
million. I will sue and seek punitive and exemplary damages of one tenth
of Google's net worth. One-hundredth of 154 billion is 1.5
billion. Unless I hear an offer of at least ten million by Wed
11/18/2009 at 1700 CST I will change nothing except the first letter and seek
10 Billion. Punitive damages must PUNISH.
I repeat ten million by
11/18/2009 1700:01 CST or I will demand ten billion for the malicious
intentional act.
GOOGLE'S DISMISSAL OF MY
COMPLAINT AND THE EXTORTION DEMAND FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE WAS AN
INTENTIONAL MALICIOUS ACT.
Google Inc. must not have
even googled [+Sleepspot.com +"Curtis Neeley" +resevations] <<
I save you the typing.
A severely brain damaged pauper with no legs and who has had a hemispheric
stroke and came closer to dying than nearly anyone in history is now
suing Google for licensing NameMedia's cybersquatting of TWO TM'd domains Pro
Se presenting to a JURY from a wheelchair is
newsworthy?
This email is archived and
saved as a PDF. You may view it in HTML at
http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/Googles-policy-of-cybersquatting/
One Pro Se pauper being awarded 10 billion in punitive damages for a malicious
act will withstand the reviews of commoners.
Commoners might view
it as a special tax because half of it will be paid as a
tax.
Taxed commoners already have a lien on the settlement. They
paid for the filing fees and service to NameMedia. They will serve
Google and Network Solutions when I figure out how to amend and re-file
the complaint. I will send this from several mail servers. My time
is included by default. One second late is a decision. Compare it
to "Deal or No
Deal" after the button is pushed. 9.5 million offered
by COB on 11/18/2009 will only ad to my distress. Ten million is less
than one percent of Google and not nearly
punitive.
Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA
www.CurtisNeeley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley
suffered a severe traumatic brain injury that often very negatively
impacts his communications. He is often perceived as blunt, tactless,
self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a severe disability,
he is determined to continue performing
meaningful art. The Curtis Neeley Foundation is created to preserve
and promote his artistic photographic legacy.
-----Original
Message-----
From: X, Y
[mailto:confused@networksolutions.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:51
AM
To:
123@456.321
Subject: RE: Network Solutions Executive
Office - SLEEPSPOT.COM
Dear Mr.
Neeley,
Thank you
very much for your email.
I do
understand your frustrations regarding SLEEPSPOT.COM. I do want to make
you aware; the publishing of the expiration date you spoke of is done through
the Whois Database that is run by ICANN
itself.
ICANN
mandates
that all domain name registrars publish the information in the Whois Database,
including but not limited to the expiration date of a domain
name.
{OK; I see that
the preceding line is the official fraudulent excuse that is the
completely true but often miscited excuse for TM
and copyright violations}
You can find
more information directly at Icann.org.
Sincerely,
X
XY
From: Curtis
Neeley Jr. [mailto:123@456.321]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 7:42
PM
To: XY,
X
Subject: RE: Network
Solutions Executive Office - SLEEPSPOT.COM
Ms
XY,
The two TMs that I was using did not expire when they should have because
Network Solutions violated my copyrights to the two domains by publishing the
dates of their expiration. Announcing an expiration date is disclosing
information that the copyright owner has exclusive rights to publish or
copy. I feel sleepspot.com was worth millions and use of
the phrase "expiration date" created a detrimental reliance to
silently expire to wait for any random user in the Internet Universe to seek
to use for commerce. By publishing the expiration date of a copyrighted
and TM'd domain Network Solutions was publishing information I had exclusive
rights to publish. Network Solutions violated my copyrights that
resulted in NameMedia's cybersquatting. The domaining "industry" was
created by a Network Solutions propensity to violate copyrights and publish
private data as well as the other registrars doing the same
thing.
Thank you speaking with me the other day. I agree that if Network
solutions did not purchase two domains exactly like mine were after they
expired, Network Solutions were not guilty of TM infringement. I will
need to use the obvious copyright violation to attach a separate lawsuit
instead of adding you to 5:2009cv05151.
Violating the copyrights of my two domains by publishing the expiration dates
that you then did not purchase is giving value to any domain that
expires. The creation of an expiring inventory is taking an active
role in potential cybersquatting. I intend to file a copyright
violation action in Federal Court and seek two million dollars and an order
that Network Solutions cease publishing expiration dates without express
license. Network Solutions' act did not span nearly a decade as did
NameMedia's and were not after being advised as theirs
were.
With the value of patent lawsuit awards a subject currently planned
for consideration in the Congress, I will file for summery judgment and
ask a jury to rule on damages before a jury and ask as great as possible with
a minimum of two million dollars. I will seek an IFP status and should
receive a grant to proceed. Maybe it is that a domain name copyright is
not yet recognized. A lawsuit might be the only way to finally settle
that.
Thank you for speaking. Do you see an obvious error in my logic?
Candy.com sold for three million and business.com sold for eight
million.
Curtis J Neeley Jr,
MFA
www.CurtisNeeley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley
suffered a severe traumatic brain injury that often very negatively
impacts his communications. He is often perceived as blunt, tactless,
self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a severe disability,
he is determined to continue performing
meaningful art. The Curtis Neeley Foundation is created to preserve
and promote his artistic photographic legacy.
-----Original
Message-----
From: X, Y
[mailto:confused@networksolutions.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 3:18
PM
To: 123@456.321;
123@456.321
Subject: Network Solutions Executive
Office - SLEEPSPOT.COM
Dear Mr. Neeley,
Thank you for taking the
time to speak with me today, November 6,
2009.
Again, I am sorry to hear
of the difficulties you encountered regarding the domain name,
SLEEPSPOT.COM. As we discussed, the domain name after it was deleted
from your account went back to the Registry to be resecured by another
party.
Please do not hesitate to
contact me with any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 570-708-8700
ext. 9003. My office is available Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 6 PM
Eastern time.
For all other inquiries,
as a Network Solutions Customer, you are entitled to unlimited access, day or
night, to technically skilled Customer Service Representatives who are
dedicated to delivering any level of support you may need. To reach us, call
1-888-642-9675. If you are calling from outside the U.S. or Canada, please
call 1-570-708-8788. You may also submit your request online at
http://www.networksolutions.com/help/email.jsp.
Best Regards,
X
XY
Executive
Support Office
This
message is intended solely for the designated recipient, may contain
privileged or confidential information and may be subject to confidentiality
agreement(s). Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may
be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy the original
communication.