> > A more fundamental question is:
> >
> > Should a non contracted party contact a party about their contract with
> > another party?
> >
> >
> > Hmmm.
>
>What confuses me is:
>
>Is the contract between the Registrant and the Reseller, the Registrant and
>the Registrar, the Registrant and the Registry, the Registrant and auDA or
>all of the above.
>
>Also at what point is the contract made and at what point does the 'first
>come, first served' allocation policy come into effect.

Actually you know you just raised a really good situation!

You see, the contract and transaction is between the Registrant and the 
RESELLER, it has NOTHING to do with auDA or the Registry.

In fact, if auDA can prove they have a right to contract with the 
Registrant, I'd be very interested.

I have THREE judgements saying that a company which provided domain name 
services via an agent has NO legal recourse or right to claim costs, change 
contracts, transfer contracts, or cease providing a functional service to 
the consumer.

In short, it doesn't matter what contracts are between the Supplier and the 
Agent/Reseller, it only matters what is between the consumer and reseller.

If auDA refuse, fail, or cease to provide a domain name to a consumer who 
paid an agent/reseller for that domain name, auDA might end up with domain 
names out of pocket!

Bottom line is - the contract is between the consumer and registrar, not 
auDA and the consumer, ditto with MIT, who have no legal right to the 
consumer, unless the agent/reseller created that right with the consumer.

Hmm, interesting paradox.

Having just read a judgement in the Federal Court involving auDA I feel 
more cases will arise.  The judgement just read I have mixed feelings about 
with regard to the applicant and respondent.  Hindsight might be a cause 
for auDA concern.