From where I sit claims of "malicious" and "abuse" are often mere whining about acts that are neither actually malicious nor actually abusive.
What I am suggesting is that when writing about domain names (or in this case, about the mere registration of a name) as being malicious or abusive that those terms not only ought to be clearly defined, but that those definitions be front and center on any report about such domains.
The Interisle report says this (on page 35):
How does Interisle determine if a domain has been “maliciously registered?”
We consider domains blocklisted within 90 days of registration to be malicious.
I note that Interisle seems to distinguish between malicious *registration* and malicious *use*. There us a vast gap there - the same as the difference between a) buying a glass cutter and b) using that glass cutter in a crime (such as cutting through a window pane in order to commit a burglary.)
In other words in the minds of Interisle, a domain that somebody puts onto some block lists within three months is adjudged, usually without further inquiry, as "malicious".
Or to put it another way around, what is "malicious" depends on the opinions of some unknown block listing agencies.
That is not not a definition. Rather it is an invitation to vigilante and inconsistent behaviour.
A true definition would dig into real actions that have been actually performed through the use of an accused domain name.
Perhaps the Interisle definition could be useful as a sieve to identify registrations that deserve deeper inquiry.
But saying that a domain name is malicious simply on the basis of block list entries is a process based on third party rumor (in law we would call that "hearsay", a thing that is usually excluded by our rules of evidence) rather than on a presentation of relevant, directly obtained, supporting facts.
ICANN Published Two Years of Enforcing DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Progress & Next Steps
Warm Regards
Nitin Walia
Director
Data Ingenious Global
nitin@data.in | नितिन@डाटा.भारत
www.data.in
--------------------------------------------------------------
The content of this email is confidential and intended only for the recipient specified.
If you received this message in error, please delete it and inform the sender.From: David Hughes via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org> MailId : [154969301]
To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com,gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: New Interisle Study
Date: 03 Jun 2026 06:24:57 AMthank you Marc,You beat me to the punch.Very useful study, none of it surprising.but Shockingly high levels of abuse levels at some registrars.(if I read it correctly, one has 80% plus abuse?, please correct me if i am reading it wrong)._______________________________________________
Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-pdp-leave@icann.org_______________________________________________Do not Remove:
[HID]20260603062457190[-HID]
[XGENFOOTER]
[-XGENFOOTER]![]()
Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-pdp-leave@icann.org