I think highlighting risks in systems we might eventually change, but can't change yet, is also part of sensible policy.
We're not going to change the DNS registrar system overnight. But by drawing attention to the issue, we might, eventually, make it a bit more robust with regards to things like registrars becoming unresponsive to small players, or losing data.
For example if people could register with two or three independent registrars in order to have robust control and ownership in the event any one registrar fails them, that might help as a technical solution for robustness. No doubt there are other non-technical things that may help as well.
Separate from changing DNS, I think it's sensible to recognise that risks with cloud hosting or using SaaS, as happened to OP with their GitHub account, also exist with DNS, so for anyone who would find that a problem, they should evaluate whether relying on a single domain, or even on DNS itself, is the right thing to do. For example, high-value IoT devices in the field that can't be updated easily might look for their server at more than one DNS name, and specifically on separate domains (not subdomains) held by distinct registrars, and validate the server's identity. Or they might keep track of IP addresses that have worked recently (in addition to DNS) and fall back to those. (I have worked on devices where this was helpful because DNS on some deployed sites turned out to be unreliable.)
I don't disagree, but I think it's fair to say that the risk of some random DNS-related dispute causing a problem where your registrar cuts you off is much lower than the risk of some random SAAS you depend on pulling a fast one.
The culture and economics behind a lot of tech SAASes that we talk about here all the time make them inherently vulnerable to discarding or abusing users, even those who have been with them a long time and maybe paid them quite a lot of money, in the name of the almighty growth curve. The incentives there are not necessarily aligned with supporting even long-standing and loyal users.
In contrast, there is little to gain for a DNS provider to screw a paying customer or get embroiled in some tedious arguments about rights to some domain name. They can't entirely avoid that because of the environment they operate in, but they are generally going to make the most money when they have lots of happy customers who can briefly engage with the provider's almost entirely automated systems and pay some registration fees for the privilege through another almost entirely automated system and then everyone can get on with their day happy with the trade.
We're not going to change the DNS registrar system overnight. But by drawing attention to the issue, we might, eventually, make it a bit more robust with regards to things like registrars becoming unresponsive to small players, or losing data.
For example if people could register with two or three independent registrars in order to have robust control and ownership in the event any one registrar fails them, that might help as a technical solution for robustness. No doubt there are other non-technical things that may help as well.
Separate from changing DNS, I think it's sensible to recognise that risks with cloud hosting or using SaaS, as happened to OP with their GitHub account, also exist with DNS, so for anyone who would find that a problem, they should evaluate whether relying on a single domain, or even on DNS itself, is the right thing to do. For example, high-value IoT devices in the field that can't be updated easily might look for their server at more than one DNS name, and specifically on separate domains (not subdomains) held by distinct registrars, and validate the server's identity. Or they might keep track of IP addresses that have worked recently (in addition to DNS) and fall back to those. (I have worked on devices where this was helpful because DNS on some deployed sites turned out to be unreliable.)