It seems to me that as far as domain registration is concerned, Namecheap's subsidiary Whoisguard is technically the domain owner in this case. Of course, they're doing this with the intent to be a proxy, but technically they are the owner and so it seems that it would be appropriate to sue them for the misuse of that domain.
I.e. "We found that Namecheap’s proxy service, Whoisguard, registered or used 45 domain names" - it's not that 45 John Does have registered these domains and we want their identities, we know who is the official owner of these domains is - it's Whoisguard; and it's up to Whoisguard to either accept full responsibility for the [mis]use of these domains or provide some arguments why someone else should be held responsible instead.
If "internet standard process" is that they should do something else other then sue Namecheap - well, that works as far as that other thing works faster/better/cheaper than suing Namecheap directly. If it does not, then the legal process is that they can sue Namecheap if it feels more effective.
In essence what seems to be happening here is testing in a court whether the current practice of domain "privacy proxies" can be done without the proxy accepting any liability for the domains they're shielding. Such services were implemented in the notion that they don't intend to accept any liability, but as far as I know it has not yet been tested in courts whether they can get away with it.
It's worth noting that in many other similar aspects (e.g. copyright issues for user generated content, etc) the default position was that proxies can be held liable as accomplices, and that changed only when specific laws were passed saying that such proxies are immune from liability if certain conditions are met (e.g. common carrier, dmca, etc, etc). So, depending on how the courts rule, it's plausible that we might get precedent that domain privacy proxies do have to bear some liability if they happend to protect the anonymity of criminals, which would de facto mean that those proxies won't exist, that all such services would shut down.
You miss the point entirely: FB cannot do anything without suing, even if they had their names and addresses. These things are solved either via ICANN procedures or through federal courts. In both cases, NameCheap would be forced to notify owners or divulge their info.
I.e. "We found that Namecheap’s proxy service, Whoisguard, registered or used 45 domain names" - it's not that 45 John Does have registered these domains and we want their identities, we know who is the official owner of these domains is - it's Whoisguard; and it's up to Whoisguard to either accept full responsibility for the [mis]use of these domains or provide some arguments why someone else should be held responsible instead.
If "internet standard process" is that they should do something else other then sue Namecheap - well, that works as far as that other thing works faster/better/cheaper than suing Namecheap directly. If it does not, then the legal process is that they can sue Namecheap if it feels more effective.
In essence what seems to be happening here is testing in a court whether the current practice of domain "privacy proxies" can be done without the proxy accepting any liability for the domains they're shielding. Such services were implemented in the notion that they don't intend to accept any liability, but as far as I know it has not yet been tested in courts whether they can get away with it.
It's worth noting that in many other similar aspects (e.g. copyright issues for user generated content, etc) the default position was that proxies can be held liable as accomplices, and that changed only when specific laws were passed saying that such proxies are immune from liability if certain conditions are met (e.g. common carrier, dmca, etc, etc). So, depending on how the courts rule, it's plausible that we might get precedent that domain privacy proxies do have to bear some liability if they happend to protect the anonymity of criminals, which would de facto mean that those proxies won't exist, that all such services would shut down.