The other risk I guess would be that all the NS are AWS/route53 severs, so if that went down they'd be up for about a minutes (looks like the DNS TTL is 2 minutes).
You could host your own NS servers in two different locations on two different providers, you could have a third hot spare server ready to go too, that would allow the service to survive an earthquake flattening San Diego (off site server ready to go), and cope with the loss of AWS DNS. Whether the cost/benefit ratio is there is another matter. I think the serving side of route53 is fairly reliable though (even when the interface to update records fails on a frequent basis), and the cost of being down isn't particularly terrible.