Abuse Response Stats

Host / Registrar Abuse Reports (Rolling 90 day stats)

Entity Domains Reported Total Reports Domains Reported Multiple Times
Namesilo.com 4 4 0%
Nicenic.net 5 5 0%
Wildwestdomains.com 4 4 0%
Name.com 4 4 0%
Alibaba Cloud 6 6 0%
Dynu 11 11 0%
Namesilo.com 28 30 7%
Free Range Cloud 22 28 9%
Public Domain Registry 11 13 9%
Microsoft 10 11 10%
Spaceship.com 7 8 14%
Zgh.cl 11 13 18%
Letscloud.io 34 54 18%
Gmo.jp 16 19 19%
Cloudflare 238 322 24%
Tucowsdomains.com 8 13 25%
Namecheap.com 295 525 29%
Hi-load.biz 23 64 39%
Realtimeregister.com 7 10 43%
Internet.bs 31 76 45%
GoDaddy 28 54 50%
Porkbun.com 9 16 56%
Amazon Web Services 32 83 66%

Trends Revealed in Registrar Abuse Response Stats

The registrar stats uncovers trends in scam takedown compliance. Most notably, Amazon Web Services and Porkbun.com at the bottom extreme, with a high repeat-report rate. Over half of all abusive domains needed multiple reports before any action was taken, while Hi-load.biz, Internet.bs and GoDaddy follow closely.

Mid-Tier Registrars and Hosts Show Persistent Repeat Complaints

Mid-tier providers such as Namecheap and Cloudflare also show significant multiple-report percentages, signaling that more than one in four abusive domains slip through initial abuse reports. Even respected registrars like Namesilo.com and GMO.jp see roughly 20% of domains require re-reporting, underscoring persistent gaps in domain registrar enforcement and ICANN abuse policy.

Dynu.com Sets the Standard

In contrast, Dynu.com’s 0 % multiple-report rate highlights the impact of swift abuse takedowns. The abuse reporting trends tend to show better response times from smaller registrars, typically with in-house abuse teams. Smaller registrars can honor aggressive SLAs with near-instant takedowns and virtually no repeat filings, thanks to leaner portfolios, strict onboarding/KYC (know your customer) checks and dedicated compliance staff.

Large Registrars Struggle with Abuse Reporting Loads

Large registrars juggle millions of active domains and farm out abuse desks to third-party vendors with quantity prioritized over quality. This approach dilutes accountability, creates sprawling ticket backlogs and forces security teams to submit multiple abuse reports before a bad actor is finally placed on clientHold status.