At 17:46 9/07/02 +1000, you wrote:
>First there's a commotion because MIT didn't terminate ING's status as a
>reseller.
>
>Now there's a commotion when they did just that and told affected
>registrants about it.
>
>Damned if you do etc.

Oh no, not the Carmel Niland line.

I think it's the way in which this has happened.

Why should CONSUMERS be contacting their ISPs to say "Hey MIT cancelled the 
contract with ING, where is our domain name, what does this email we got mean?"

MIT should have at least posted something to this list PRIOR to sending 
details to the consumers, and could have made an effort to notify resellers 
and hosting providers before causing further confusion with the consumer.

The consumer doesn't give a damn about MIT and it's contracts with anyone 
else, it cares about it's contract with it's hosting provider, general an ISP.

It's accepted practise in the retail trade that MANUFACTURERS do NOT 
directly contact consumers, but deal through the agents.

Clearly there is a serious misalignment here.

Any supplier of mine that contacted my clients directly can find a new 
reseller and will lose the clients.  Thank goodness I have nothing to do 
with MIT.