OK. You're wrong about this. HTH. :)|
Or only halfway. This [icann.org] is how ICANN wants it handled (see 1 and 2), there are already similar provisions in the ICANN registrar accreditation agreement, and the complaint form (see 3, in fact the whole page is instructive) if used, or if a query is otherwise received, a registrar is supposed to check on the WHOIS accuracy for a given domain. The registrar in turn is supposed to contact the registrant to ensure that the data is or will be made (at present I believe within 15 days) accurate. If it isn't the registrar should cancel the domain, though the registrar is granted some discretion if they feel that a failure to do so on the part of the registrant is innocent.
So your my-football-blog.net (hey, still available) had better have accurate WHOIS data if anyone (for emphasis anyone) should ask about it or you could lose it. As an aside, as I, and I believe John Berryhill (the search function no longer appears to work), pointed out on the old DNSO [dnso.org] General Assembly list, this is an easy way to get a domain you want if it contains false WHOIS data. Rat them out, put in a drop request for it, wait for it to be dropped, et Voila.
As my first and second links following show, the Intellectual Property interests, and others who stand to benefit from this (including those nominally within ICANN's tent like Steve Metalitz, Mark Bohannon, and Rick Wesson), despite having disproportionate power within ICANN, are frustrated at ICANN's lack of progress on this issue, so they've gone whining to those gov't reps to whom they perhaps make disproportionate campaign donations. According to my third link following, the provision to yank a domain simply for inaccurate WHOIS data isn't presently within the bill, however Berman wants it added so it may well still wind up in there, and SFAICT the bill does put the onus on registrars to ensure that the WHOIS is accurate, so one presumably winds up with nearly the same result, one can lose one's domain(s) for inaccurate WHOIS data.
PC World [pcworld.com]
Thomas Roessler [does-not-exist.org] points to the testimony records.
Susan Crawford [blogware.com] doesn't like the bill.
Wendy Seltzer [seltzer.org] doesn't like it either.
Ross Rader [byte.org] of registrar Tucows also doesn't like it, and says so with a response from Rick Wesson here [byte.org]
In a somewhat related story, Google had also recently rolled out an aggregate whois tool, see here [com.com], but pulled it after business partner VeriSign complained they were getting too many queries. For a non-obvious new tool it was getting a lot of work, and I doubt it was all from law enforcement and IP lawyers or other semi-legit entities.
Finally, the current issue of WiReD magazine has an interesting article [wired.com] regarding what Intellectual Property interests are doing for, or to, America. With gTLD registrations dropping and many ccTLD's registrations rising each year, some by double digits, the IP folks should really grab a clue. If the US passes the wrong laws there are well over 200 other options. -g