When the Majority and Minority Leaders names both appear on legislation the likelihood of the bill being released from committee is very good.

The bill calls for "in rem" actions against domain names, rather than persons, calling for forfeiture. "in rem" is a legal action against property and not a person.

So, if the registrar is US based ...

In other words, if the information at the registrar is incorrect you will not be notified of the legal action "in rem." And without personal service, the action will continue against your "property" ? the domain name. If on US soil, perhaps the in rem action would be against the physical server(s) also.

I made a copy in PDF of the bill's text from thomas.gov

This bill would attempt to impose some extraterritorial regulation by the taking of action in rem. Like trial "in absentia" sort of as a layman's explanation.

As to the likelihood of a case of porn infringement being pursued ...

How high infringement in the porn industry would be subject in the AG's prioritization standards is at question. However, considering that one of the bill's sponsors is the Minority Leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orin Hatch R. (UT), who also is a proponent of anti-porn legislation, including being the author of the §2257A statue enacted as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act signed into law by US President GW Bush on July 27, 2006.

So, in an ongoing attempt to repress the dissemination of "pornographic adult material" which is legal and allowed speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution ? I would expect there to be a major drive by the Religious-Right, the *Fundies* as we call them, to use this law, if enacted, as a tool to "stamp out the spread of porn corrupting our youth on the Internet."