TL;DR - Adam is saying that the new top-level domains will require that you prove your identity when you register with them.
First of all, I don't see any evidence of that. None of the links that he provides include any such claim.
Second, he is claiming this only applies to the new global top level domains. So, who cares? Nobody's going to use those anyway. They're going the way of .biz and .info -- a permanently boring ghetto.
Adam also says "The entire reason for even trying to get a DNS provision into law is because it is nearly impossible to track down the owner of a website, or domain name, through today's registration tools."
That's not, actually, the reason. The reason to get the DNS provision into law is to shut down websites operated from outside the United States where the US does not have jurisdiction.
It is relatively easy for law enforcement to track down the owner of a domain. It resolves to an IP address. The IP address is routed by hardware. The hardware is located in physical space. As long as it's all in the United States, it's just not that hard to find the operator of a website based on the domain name, and that is not what the entertainment lobby is concerned about. They are concerned with what happens when the operator is outside the US and they don't have jurisdiction, so they want laws passed to ensure that US-based ISPs are obliged to block access to foreign infringers.
Yes, thank you for making me feel a little more confident that I'm not missing the obvious-point-to-be-mad-about because I'm jaded/apathetic.
How many real life cases has it been impossible to ascertain the identity of trouble-causing site's owner, anyway? Everyone knows who is behind Wikileaks, for example. Anyone else wanting to do disagreeable things is far more likely to do it on the many existing platforms instead of hatching the complex fake-identiy/credit-card scheme to purchase a TLD that can't be easily tracked to him/her.
To become effective participnts in politica, the tech community activists have to tilt less at thinly supported grand conspiracies and focus on the more mundane workings of the sausage factory that produces our laws and regulations.
EDIT: I realize I've set up a straw,an, and in fact, there are many dissidents who'd like to have less requirements in registering a domain name...but why they would go that route rather than creating fake accounts on well-used services...in any case, Joel currently has the benefit of the doubt in arguing that the OP is factually wrong
It's actually pretty common for it to be impossible to determine who the actual human is that registered a domain.
Between pre-paid credit cards, non-verification of whois records and corporate registrations there are too many ways to avoid disclosing your identity.
(Currently, from memory, the only verification most registrars do is make you is enter a real credit card number even if you aren't paying with that. Pre-paid credit cards remove any identifying information from that.)
It may be hard to determine who's registered a domain name, but if you're doing anything other than simply parking it, there are several points of attack other than the domain name registration (hosting and credit card processing being the most obvious 2).
Hosting is certainly doable with pre-paid credit cards (and sometimes even PayPal).
I'm not sure why this is even relevant anyway - the real problem with enforcing IP rules isn't identifying the person - it's jurisdiction. If a site is hosted outside the US and the domain is registered outside the US, and the country where it is hosted and registered doesn't respect US IP laws then there currently is very little anyone in the US can do about it (easily anyway).
You can use a free host of some sort. You'll get ads, but you'll be difficult to find (tracable to an internet cafe somewhere at most, if you do it right)
On paragraph states:
"Proponents of requiring thick Whois argue that being able to access the thick data at both the registry and the registrar level will ensure greater accessibility of the data. The draft report of the Implementation Recommendations Team put together by ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency stated "the IRT believes that the provision of WHOIS information at the registry level under the Thick WHOIS model is essential to the cost effective protection of consumers and intellectual property owners."
The doc is probably stale though. Not sure where to find the latest revisions.
The reason to get the DNS provision into law is to shut
down websites operated from outside the United States
where the US does not have jurisdiction.
Could more accurately be stated as:
The reason to get the DNS provision into law is to keep
American's from accessing and funding websites operated
from outside the United States OR where the US does not
have jurisdiction (foreign TLDs).
The site can (and most likely will) remain up for the rest of the world. Just not those using US-based name servers and ISPs. (...IANAL)
First of all, I don't see any evidence of that. None of the links that he provides include any such claim.
Second, he is claiming this only applies to the new global top level domains. So, who cares? Nobody's going to use those anyway. They're going the way of .biz and .info -- a permanently boring ghetto.
Adam also says "The entire reason for even trying to get a DNS provision into law is because it is nearly impossible to track down the owner of a website, or domain name, through today's registration tools."
That's not, actually, the reason. The reason to get the DNS provision into law is to shut down websites operated from outside the United States where the US does not have jurisdiction.
It is relatively easy for law enforcement to track down the owner of a domain. It resolves to an IP address. The IP address is routed by hardware. The hardware is located in physical space. As long as it's all in the United States, it's just not that hard to find the operator of a website based on the domain name, and that is not what the entertainment lobby is concerned about. They are concerned with what happens when the operator is outside the US and they don't have jurisdiction, so they want laws passed to ensure that US-based ISPs are obliged to block access to foreign infringers.
Adam's analysis in this case is flat-out wrong.