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?

Does publicly listing a domain for sale mean you'd automatically lose a UDRP arbitration if someone has a trademark for it?

No. A public sale listing is not an automatic loss. Here's how panels actually decide these cases.

The controlling rule

Bad faith based on a sale offer requires that the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of selling to the trademark owner (or a competitor) for more than out-of-pocket costs. Two things must be true at once: (1) the primary purpose of registration was to sell, and (2) the target was that specific trademark holder. A generic public listing on Sedo or Afternic doesn't automatically satisfy either requirement. (WIPO Overview 3.1; UDRP Perspectives 3.5)

What panels actually look at

No single factor decides it. Panels weigh all of these:

How distinctive is the trademark? A coined word like KODAK is treated very differently from a generic term like CLOUD.

Did the registrant plausibly know about the mark when registering? Famous marks raise this inference; obscure marks don't.

Was the offer directed at the trademark owner specifically, or listed publicly for any buyer?

Does the asking price only make sense if the trademark owner is the buyer, or is it consistent with general market prices?

Does the registrant hold a broader portfolio of generic/descriptive domains, or a collection of brand-matching ones?

Was the domain registered after the mark became well-known, or before?

Is there a credible non-trademark reason to want the domain?

Things that do NOT automatically mean bad faith

Listing a domain publicly for sale (UDRP Perspectives 3.5)

Asking a high price (UDRP Perspectives 3.5; WIPO Overview 3.1.1)

Even reaching out to the trademark owner directly — panels look at whether multiple parties were approached and whether the registration was brand-specific (UDRP Perspectives 3.5)

Wanting to profit — legitimate domain investing is a recognized lawful activity under UDRP (UDRP Perspectives 2.6)

When the calculus shifts against you

The harder cases are where the domain is identical to a highly distinctive coined brand, there's no plausible use for the domain other than trading on the trademark, and the asking price is only realistic for the trademark owner itself. In those cases panels have found bad faith even without a direct approach to the owner. A notable example is the three-member panel majority in WIPO case D2022-1570, which found that the asking price implied the complainant was the only conceivable buyer — though a dissent disagreed, illustrating that even these edge cases are not automatic.

Bottom line

The outcome depends on: how famous and distinctive the mark is, whether you had it in your sights at registration, whether there's a credible independent reason to want the domain, and who you're actually marketing it to. Generic terms with multiple plausible buyers, listed publicly, have repeatedly survived UDRP challenges. (UDRP Perspectives 3.5) Coined-brand matches with sky-high asking prices and no other credible use have not.

"The registrar must provide the full Registration Data to the UDRP provider within two business days after the registrar is notified that a UDRP complaint exists. The registrar must also lock the domain."

It's pulling the travel advisories from US/CA/UK/IE/AU/NZ and aggregating the results/information to help you understand the risks of different countries. It also pulls from other sources for basic country info/risks (eg. women, lgbtq).

Yours is way lighter weight and focused, very cool!

How are these "scams & fraud"?

> Make sure your health insurance plan provides coverage overseas. Most care providers overseas only accept credit card payments. See our webpage for more information on insurance overseas. Visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for more information on the type of insurance you should consider before you travel overseas.

> Gas stations in rural areas can be far apart. Some stations are unattended and require a credit card with a chip to purchase fuel.

Same with https://travelsafetydata.com/country/NO

It lists child protection laws as "scams & fraud"

Room for improvement. Thanks :)

If you're really interested in it, I suggest subscriber to https://www.thebignewsletter.com/