The current state of play, according to Glenn Reynolds. There was a piece on the subject in Sunday's Boston Globe as well. I wish that Congress would do something about this. It would have a lot bigger effect in the long run than deciding how much to underfund a failed Constellation concept.
Congress may not have to do anything. Consider this thought experiment:
IIRC, Tom Cruise is one of the people who has purchased an acre from the Lunar Embassy. Suppose that one of the Google Lunar X-Prize teams lands on that particular acre, and then sells the robot to Tom Cruise, and hands over the controls. Assuming that the robot is robust enough to survive many lunar day/night cycles, and that its solar panels provide power indefinitely, and that it could do some basic work (moving around dust or something) then Tom Cruise has a very strong claim to the land, beyond the Lunar Embassy deed, based upon his ability to work the land.
Which means nothing until he is ready to sell it. If the buyer agrees that he has title that is good enough as the sovereign doesn't have to get involved which avoids an OST violation.
I think the real sign will be when someone pays taxes on their property up there. Property taxes are collected by an agent of the sovereign (a State in the US), so a tax payment would make for a defacto recognition of title. I don't know how to do it, but the property would have to be registered with some willing county I think.
I vastly prefer claims based on the inherent authority of certain actions over "permission slips" signed by *insert name of favorite bureaucracy here*. Such inherent authority of certain actions is precisely what the treaty established (with a few sensible additional criteria).
I recommend reading this pdf instead of the links provided although I disagree with parts of its conclusion in regard to any need for lunar land claims before actual occupation or use (which triggers a valid claim under the existing treaty) as pointed out over at Space Politics. I've also argued that the idea of prerequisite claims is contrary to the sensible, property-friendly, and widely accepted international interpretation of of the treaty (as documented in the pdf) and as such the ideas of such claims are not in compliance with it (and very likely weakens the juridical basis for claims rather than strengthening it).
Nothing really needs to be done and I hope nothing is done. Doing anything at all with this issue is far more likely to create a worse outcome since what we already have is close to the best possibility: straightforward and with a minimum of fuzz.
"Assuming that the robot is robust enough to survive many lunar day/night cycles, and that its solar panels provide power indefinitely, and that it could do some basic work (moving around dust or something) then Tom Cruise has a very strong claim to the land, beyond the Lunar Embassy deed, based upon his ability to work the land"
But there's the rub. Claims are based on law, adjudicated by courts, established by governments with jurisdiction, i.e. sovereignty, precisely what the OST forbids. Exactly which court is Tom Cruise going to make his case that he has a "strong claim"? Upon which law is he going to base his argument "upon his ability to work the land"? What recourse does Cruise have if someone else's rover rolls onto "his" acre?
Lunar land ownership advocates have to stop kidding themselves that lunar land ownership can somehow be made compatible with the OST.
Jim Davis