It could be but I doubt the DNS filter would cause the high latency - at least if it’s implemented properly. Could you try querying another domain and observing whether the latency is the same?
1.1.1.1 resolves both of those domains without issues on my end.
[[email protected] ~]$ dig cock.li @1.1.1.1
; <<>> DiG 9.16.21 <<>> cock.li @1.1.1.1
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 20204
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;cock.li. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
cock.li. 273 IN A 193.239.85.202
;; Query time: 13 msec
;; SERVER: 1.1.1.1#53(1.1.1.1)
;; WHEN: Sat Oct 09 18:54:30 CEST 2021
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 52
[[email protected] ~]$ dig vc.gg @1.1.1.1
; <<>> DiG 9.16.21 <<>> vc.gg @1.1.1.1
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 41811
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;vc.gg. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
vc.gg. 261 IN A 185.100.85.212
;; Query time: 13 msec
;; SERVER: 1.1.1.1#53(1.1.1.1)
;; WHEN: Sat Oct 09 18:54:57 CEST 2021
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 50