I'm not sure this follows. You're allowed to publish, say, a book or pamphlet without signing it with your legal name and address. So is a website more like a book, or a building?
Somewhere in the middle IMO. If the domain name is desirable it looks more like a building, because people generally care about who owns the land when it is not getting put to good use.
Websites are more like books when they have a domain no else else cares about.
So, maybe require official ID/address/contact info for any domain over a certain price? Or for all domains under a certain character count, maybe, which could vary for TLD.
How do you determine the value of a domain name? Also there's nothing particularly valuable for most short domain name strings except on .com. It's generic words that tend to be valuable, not a short random string.
Domains point to IPs, and IPs already have subpoenable ownership records at RIRs. In the real estate metaphor: we have property ownership records, but we don't have records of every rental tenancy.
This article is not inconsistent with my comment. The court rejected a subpoena against the ISP for the identity of the user of the IP, not against the RIR for the identity of the owner of the IP. This is like the court rejecting a subpoena against the landlord for their tenant's identity.
That's not true. Those are registration records NOT ownership records. People do not purchase ip address or domains. They register them for temporary use.
For non-legacy allocations, point taken (but my original comment still stands if you replace "ownership" with "registration"). For legacy allocations, it's more complicated.
ICANN accredited domain registrars (so any registrar selling generic TLDs like .org, .com, .design etc) have contractual obligations related to technical abuses like phishing, malware, and botnets, insofar as they intersect with a domain name.
Content/expression related harms are outside of ICANNs bylaws and any obligations related to what a domain points at are not from ICANN, but from the laws in the jurisdiction in which the registrar operates. This is generally good. There is no global standard for acceptable limits on expression, with the possible exception of CSAM which is illegal everywhere.
Requiring domain registrars to arbitrate what content should be accessible via the DNS is perilous.
