That presentation is... weird. For example, claiming 4 registry families having over a million blocker domains. But there aren't that many registries... and th

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?