Which was done by the former CEO of ICANN now advising Ethos Capital to acquire .ORG. Small world...

The world would be such a better place if we were prosecuting conflicts of interest with the same strength as drug sales (or just drugs uses).

The harm they do to society is on a much bigger scale.

Not to mention as Portugal showed us, criminalizing narcotics has zero positive effect. They decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and usage went down, and so did all negative consequences normally ascribed to drug use itself [1].

Time to do something worthwhile with that enforcement power.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...

Ironically that comes close to replicating the old British system, once world famous along with similar approaches in India, and elsewhere. It ran quietly and successfully for half a century. The tiniest remnants remain, despite the addition of the war on drugs, though it's very hard to get to these days - criminalisation takes priority.

It died with sustained US pressure at the UN as the last gasp of Harry Anslinger, supporter of prohibition who had already given the world Reefer Madness and a load of invented racist "evidence" for the harms of marijuana in the 1930s. His team brought sustained pressure for the globe to adopt a war on drugs. Oh, and there a doctor who single handedly prescribed tens of thousands of prescriptions making a bit of an impact, single handedly, in London sixties drug culture.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/08/...

It's usually forgotten that the situation improved mainly because of refactored health services around drug use, and not just because they were decriminalized. Simply decriminalizing is very unlikely to replicate the results anywhere.

Pretty sure its more to do with the fact that the bulk of the world's solution to seeing someone on drugs is to throw them in prison where the only source of happiness is more drugs, thus solving the problem once and for all. Addiction isn't something you solve by throwing people in prison.

Can someone explain "regulatory capture"? In the specific context how it pertains to ICANN?

Regulatory capture is the name for the phenomenon where some governing/regulatory body, charged with regulating/governing some industry for the public good, instead begins serving that same industry to the detriment of the public good.

In this case, ICANN is the body governing all domain names. There are individuals who have moved from employment at ICANN to those organizations involved in the sale of the .ORG tld. Link contains dramatis personae[0].

The movement of individuals between regulator entities and regulated entities (both directions), is often considered a sign of regulatory capture.

There is a common tension, perhaps inevitable, in regulation: Those most familiar with an industry, and therefore with the best knowledge to regulate it, are those who work in that industry. Thus, the best people for a regulator to hire are those who have worked in the industry.

Similarly, those most qualified to advise on matters associated with regulation are those who have crafted the regulation. Thus, the best people for an entity in industry to hire to manage regulatory compliance are those who have worked for the regulatory body.

This wicket becomes sticky quickly.

[0] https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/11/isoc-pir-...