3 ms·

This article is pretty light on details. The linked presentation goes into a lot more detail with statistics about which registrars and organizations are the wo

This article is pretty light on details. The linked presentation goes into a lot more detail with statistics about which registrars and organizations are the worst offenders etc. https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fhosted-files.sched.co%2Ficann86%2F3f%2FGreg%2520Aaron%2520Interisle%2520Report%2520Presentation%2520ICANN86%2520v8June2026.pptx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2...

dang 1mo ago
We'll put that link in the toptext as well. Thanks!
ohashi 1mo ago
That presentation is... weird. For example, claiming 4 registry families having over a million blocker domains. But there aren't that many registries... and the domains under management by registry is... skewed. .com (verisign) is 37% of all domain registrations. Not to mention .net and other TLDs they manage. So the fact they come in below that number seems meaningless and skewed? I say this as someone who hates Verisign because they're a terrible monopolist. Then the registrar families with highest domains blocked. NameCheap registered 14m and had 1.1m abuse domains (~8%) gname had 3.1m with 1m abuse (~32%), dynadot (~20%), namesilo (~20%), godaddy (~5%). That feels pretty unfair calling out NameCheap and GoDaddy who have a fraction of the abuse the other 3 have but show up simply because of their scale? The registrars with 50%+ of domains blacklisted and top one being 87% screams for an investigation though. It seems to highlight some potentially suspect actors but also throwing some large companies under the bus simply because they're big?
- skysthelimitt 1mo ago
  most slides seem to focus on large companies solely because they're large, and therefore get a lot of abuse. the only slide that mentions companies that i recognize as neglectful (at best) looks like the slide focusing on companies with 50%+ of registrations blocked, the rest just place blame or big names
whalesalad 1mo ago
Wow I was at ICANN Seville and missed this talk. Thanks for the link.

dang 1mo ago

We'll put that link in the toptext as well. Thanks!

ohashi 1mo ago

That presentation is... weird. For example, claiming 4 registry families having over a million blocker domains. But there aren't that many registries... and the domains under management by registry is... skewed. .com (verisign) is 37% of all domain registrations. Not to mention .net and other TLDs they manage. So the fact they come in below that number seems meaningless and skewed? I say this as someone who hates Verisign because they're a terrible monopolist. Then the registrar families with highest domains blocked. NameCheap registered 14m and had 1.1m abuse domains (~8%) gname had 3.1m with 1m abuse (~32%), dynadot (~20%), namesilo (~20%), godaddy (~5%). That feels pretty unfair calling out NameCheap and GoDaddy who have a fraction of the abuse the other 3 have but show up simply because of their scale? The registrars with 50%+ of domains blacklisted and top one being 87% screams for an investigation though. It seems to highlight some potentially suspect actors but also throwing some large companies under the bus simply because they're big?

skysthelimitt 1mo ago
most slides seem to focus on large companies solely because they're large, and therefore get a lot of abuse. the only slide that mentions companies that i recognize as neglectful (at best) looks like the slide focusing on companies with 50%+ of registrations blocked, the rest just place blame or big names

whalesalad 1mo ago

Wow I was at ICANN Seville and missed this talk. Thanks for the link.