Yet ICANN’s monitoring shows a stable trend and in certain cases a downtrend.
https://ithi.research.icann.org/graph-m2.html

While I am sure of the FBI numbers reporting an increase in complaints and victim count and victim loss, I am not so sure of a direct relationship of DNS abuse.

ICANN’s inability to provide access to non-public registrant data for law enforcement is nothing less than obstruction of justice. 

ICANN’s failure here is near-certain to spur Congressional action in search of solutions.  Read more about this and the alarming implications of ICANN’s corruption and capture by special interests.

Since the link apparently isn’t working in my last comment, I’m posting my full thoughts here.

The Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) is a key enabler of technologies, such as cloud computing, that facilitate so much of what we do today and also will underpin the systems and solutions that power us into the future. At the same time, growing awareness of the significance of the DNS as the root zone of the global Internet — which is a critical lens through which to see the diplomatic maneuvering by China and Russia within international organizations and the rapid rise of DNS-focused attacks perpetrated by cybercriminals — means the DNS is seen increasingly as a strategic geopolitical chess piece. This trend is unlikely to change anytime soon and the DNS can no longer be managed as if it were solely the technical province of engineers.

Despite its starring role at the core of the Internet, the DNS has never enjoyed much in the way of marquee billing and neither does it attract the level of attention or headlines as do many of the comparatively bit players that deliver content and services at the Internet’s edge. In part, this is because users aren’t interested in the “how” of content and services delivery. But it’s also because the managers of the DNS — ICANN and its contracted parties — prefer the benefits of anonymity. Would-be regulators and other curious outsiders are kept at bay with an element of mystique manufactured from policies and procedures that are complex-by-design and made further inaccessible to all but an insular club of special interests that, like an itinerant court of Versailles, gathers three times per year at ICANN meetings held in exotic and ever-changing locales. Membership in this self-important society is populated heavily by corporate representatives and government officials as well as the NGOs, academics, and other assorted at-large and non-commercial “stakeholders” that are sponsored to be there by corporate and government interests. 

These in-person meetings are a core element of ICANN’s exclusionary management style for the DNS, which belies the lofty, yet ultimately empty, doublespeak about inclusive stakeholder representation and bottom up multistakeholder policy-making. The importance that ICANN places on exclusive face-to-face summits is on full display in the Goals for Fiscal Year 2021 of ICANN CEO Goran Marby. In a recent post about his priorities, Marby begins by conceding that “(t)he world around ICANN is changing, and ICANN needs to evolve with it.” He goes on to indicate that the Goals were created in partnership with ICANN’s Board—making clear that this isn’t some rogue operation.

Mr. Marby’s very first goal is to, “(w)ork with Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee leaders, community members, and the Board to define and implement a phased plan to return to face-to-face meetings.” He explains that, “(f)ace-to-face meetings have always been an important part of ICANN’s DNA.” So, while the world is evolving and innovating with Internet-enabled remote participation technologies for events and meetings, the steward of the Internet’s root zone is prioritizing a return to expensive, exclusive, and ecologically unsound face-to-face meetings.

Why? Well, ICANN must restore junkets because they: 1) pacify the community with spectacle and revelry; 2) exclude most non-sponsored potential attendees (one recently published estimate pegged the travel costs to attend ICANN’s three meetings each year at $30,000); and, 3) represent a critical control mechanism that ICANN and its contracted parties rely on for hands-on managing and influencing of DNS policy-making.

Similarly to the actual court at Versailles, ICANN’s roving version is about controlling a particular group of people—French monarchs kept an eye and ear on pesky nobility; ICANN’s focus is on special-interest stakeholders. Restoring in-person meetings is given top billing before many things that should be higher priorities. For instance, although fixing ICANN’s multi-million dollar budget hole is finally mentioned in Goal #9, there is no mention of resolving the negligent failure to provide access to registrant data to law enforcement and others with legitimate need-to-know — a shortcoming that is likely to spur Congressional action. Nor do these goals even pretend to address the governance dumpster fire of ignoring thousands upon thousands of community comments in order to relax or remove pricing safeguards for .com and .org, respectively. Inarguably, these are more significant and deserving of higher priority than restoring ICANN’s traveling circus.

As mentioned above, at least one of ICANN’s governance failures is likely to spur Congressional action in search of solutions. This isn’t ideal and should be seen as a substantial black mark on the community’s performance record for managing the DNS.  ICANN’s former CEO Fadi Chehadé recently published an op-ed in the Jordan Times titled “Geeks Not Government.“ His call for keeping the Internet independent of government interference is a lovely sentiment but quickly becoming at risk of seeming quaint and outmoded.

Fadi’s article is also rather disingenuous considering that he has done more than any other person to create the conditions by which government intervention is becoming seen as necessary. Lest anyone forget, it was Fadi who traveled to Brazil for a meeting with now-disgraced former president Dilma Rousseff and where, referring to her U.N. speech excoriating the U.S., he declared that “she spoke for all of us; she spoke for the world.” (author’s note: she didn’t speak for this correspondent.)

While in São Paulo he also instigated NetMundial, which became a Leftist forum for Communists and dictators to voice their views on how to make the Internet a better place. More recently, his attempted looting of the DNS by acquiring the .org domain name registry was so riddled with red flags that California’s Attorney General was forced to intercede on behalf of the public interest.

Some longtime community leaders have expressed their view that the state Attorney General shouldn’t have gotten involved — that even a wrong decision from ICANN about whether or not to approve the .org change of control was preferable to one made with direct government influence.

This creates a Hobbesian dilemma where, essentially, Fadi and like-minded stakeholders are holding a gun to the head of the free and open Internet and demanding, “let us take what we want or the Internet gets it.” The problem is that ICANN has allowed itself to become mortally compromised and the resulting governance failures are leading many to conclude that only government intervention can mitigate the worst abuses. Unfortunately, this is a very slippery slope because at some point the question becomes about why the geeks are running things if they do such a bad job that government intervention is required. The status quo, which Fadi and others defend, has been corrupted into laissez-faire governance that permits ICANN insiders and special interests to profit privately from public interest infrastructure.

This state of affairs makes a mockery of private sector leadership of the DNS and multistakeholder governance — which the United States has placed strategic geopolitical bets on for the future of the Free World — only works when the public interest hasn’t been supplanted by the self-interest of its custodians.

Preserving our free and open Internet is predicated unavoidably on the stakeholder community being ready, willing, and able to: 1) refuse to accept the bad-faith substitution of self-interest for the public interest by ICANN, it’s subcontractors, and other special interests; 2) reject conflicted policy and contractual outcomes that result from illegitimate or flawed processes; and, 3) speak truth to power by questioning the questionable decisions and self-serving actions of ICANN, contracted parties, community leaders, and others that ill-serve the free and open Internet by eroding the legitimacy of private sector-led multistakeholder Internet governance.

The recent Twitter hack brought into stark relief the threat to technology platforms posed by insiders. Similarly, without a significant reboot coming from within, our current trajectory terminates with existential crisis and government intervention at the Internet’s root — an inside job for which we’d only have ourselves to blame.

“Since the link apparently isn’t working in my last comment”

You are missing the “:” after the scheme.