7 ms·

Your voice matters! This victory was largely because of collective action on behalf of the people making such a fuss. Anyone who wrote to California's Attorney

by kick 6y ago

Your voice matters! This victory was largely because of collective action on behalf of the people making such a fuss. Anyone who wrote to California's Attorney General should feel really proud of themselves right now; letters like yours likely directly caused this.

Waterluvian 6y ago
My non lawyer understanding is that Attorneys General effectively have an infinitely long list of crime to go after. The volume of outcry is an incredibly effective way to get your cause pushed up that list.
- adrr 6y ago
  I hope this doesn't stop the AG from completing their investigation of ICANN which is a non-profit based in California. They should still subpoena all the communications at ICANN related to the proposed ownership transfer of .org that is outlined in the original letter to ICANN. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ca-ago-to-icann-board-23jan20-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ca-ago-...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - syshum 6y ago
    I am sure that ICANN is hoping the matter is just dropped now.
    - rndgermandude 6y ago
      I am sure the PIR/ISOC and Ethos Capital are hoping this even more
      - rvnx 6y ago
        A couple of dozens of millions of dollars in lobbying to their favorite parties may help them to think the right way
      - sbarre 6y ago
        Yeah, unfortunately, the truth is probably that they are regrouping and planning a different and more defensible path to the same outcome, and will just try this again in a few years.
        ohashi 6y ago
        ICANN did leave door open if they could convert PIR to a for profit in PA. I hope PA AG has something to say about this.
        LurkersWillLurk 6y ago
        Can you describe this door? The Pennsylvania AG is pretty good, although probably not as technically inclined.
        ohashi 6y ago
        If you read the end of the full statement (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-04-30-en https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2...) "If PIR is able to provide additional information that resolves the concerns raised by the Board, PIR remains able to re-submit or initiate a new Change of Control Request." That's how they concluded, leaving the door open if they can manage to get past this hurdle.
    - seganddr 6y ago
      What can be done to initiate a change in their leadership?
- crazypython 6y ago
  Then we should ask, can we fund them more? Moreover, if we don't live in California, can we lobby our states to help pay for the Cali AG?
  - jerf 6y ago
    Having an "effectively infinite" list of crime isn't the result of a lack of funding, but the size of the set of things that technically constitute "crimes". Quadrupling their funding would still leave them with an effectively infinite amount of crime they could deal with. (This being another place where "unbounded" is probably a better word than "infinite"... there isn't literally an infinite amount of crime, but it is the case that pretty much no matter what they do, when they reach for another crime to prosecute, there will always be one there.) One of the subtle checks & balances in our system is that we don't even want prosecution to literally go after every crime... we want them to choose the things that are actually important. There's a lot of things labeled "crimes" today where the cost of enforcement greatly exceeds any value to society of that enforcement. (Expanding on that, one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem, with automated crime enforcement is that it removes this check & balance that almost nobody has even realized exists yet.)
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      Rather than being a balance, doesn't this fact leave a giant hole open for biases and the influence of personal connections?
      - jerf 6y ago
        Yes, it does that too. It's an "and". That said, I will still take "biased human picking what to prosecute" over "a prosecution sufficiently funded to prosecute literally everything". I mean, sure, I'd prefer "real justice", but "biased human" is still constrained in their actions and has to produce enough results useful to society to be able to hide their corruption in, whereas totally perfect enforcement would be a nightmare.
        6y ago
thawaway1837 6y ago
Clearly the fact that ICANN board withheld consent is evidence that all the protesting and hoopla from the people opposed to the transfer of the .org domain was completely pointless. /sarcasm
hawaiian 6y ago
It feels good to win one.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
briefcomment 6y ago
On a related note, I often find that I don't know what to do if I want to help enact change at a level that's too far removed or high above me. There are a number of factors at play here: Sometimes, I'm not aware of the issue I don't know if the offending party is amenable at any level to changing their mind I don't know if something is possibly against the law (e.g. I didn't know the AG had a say until I say this post) I don't know if the authorities or avenues of dissent that I have access to have any jurisdiction over or effect on the offending party I often have very little insight into how others feel about the issue. I don't know how much work needs to be done to shift proceedings (e.g. how many people need to contact the AG for them to change their priorities) I don't know at what level I need to focus my efforts on (e.g. community, corporate, federal, ngo, etc.) Everything is scattered all around the place. For example, I saw this good idea in another HN post: "Would it be so hard to use less packaging on foods, especially snacks?". I have an opinion on this, but I don't know how to effectively voice it. Is there an existing system, or can we make a better system to most effectively turn our opinions on the matter into action?
- dak1 6y ago
  It's usually more effective to have specialized interests, since it's very rare to have agreement on multiple issues across a large population (this should be intuitive to the HN crowd, where every issue you add doubles the number of potential positions, even though they're not random). Find an organization that already exists and get involved in it. If one doesn't exist, create one. For packaging, you'd have a few potential avenues: 1. Work to build support politically. Even small groups of 30-40 people (or smaller) are very attractive for local politicians to meet and speak with. 2. Reach out to companies directly. 3. Get earned media (possibly in conjunction with 1 or 2). If you have small, achievable, reasonable goals, then it may even be a win-win scenario for all of the above, which makes it easier to make progress. For example, you could have a campaign goal of reducing x% of packaging to reduce y tons of waste. It could be positive media attention for a company to say they've worked with a group like yours (or a small local company!) to reduce packaging and help save the environment (and it may even save the company money). Finding ways for everyone to win and creating a big tent (as opposed to trying to influence by vilifying) tends to be more successful, in my experience.
dchyrdvh 6y ago
TBH, it's nothing to do with those lazy petitions. This happened because the CA's AG chose to be a good guy, leveraged his power and put a lot of effort into fighting the bad guys. I'm sure he's been offered fat kickbacks and received thinly veiled treats. After this stunt he won't be offered a high ranked corporate position to scheme shady things and won't be able to buy yachts and helicopters left and right. That's basically the price he's paid. I think attributing this win to some "voices" would be dishonest.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Why do you think AG Becerra chose to put some of his limited resources toward this issue?
  - dchyrdvh 6y ago
    Because "in the world of souls there are two poles and between the two, wastes time and disappears into nothingness the majority of the humanity".
- TheRealPomax 6y ago
  So he made a sacrifice because, what, he just woke up one morning and felt like it? No. It's because the public brought it to his attention with enough public support to probably not hurt his career.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    Sometimes it's because they woke up and felt like it. You don't immediately stop having having feelings about issues like you or me as soon as you're in the AG office. If that's just too wild to consider, it probably also looks good come next election.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Sometimes it's because they woke up and felt like it. You don't immediately stop having having feelings about issues like you or me as soon as you're in the AG office. Maybe, but probably not in this case. The idea being put forward here is the AG's actions had "it's nothing to do with those lazy petitions" and other kinds of activism. That's clearly false. There are literally millions of good causes and issues, and no one just wakes up and decides to help one in particular. They need to learn information about both the problem and the action, and that information needs to be brought to their attention. For instance, it's almost certain there's something like a charity that you'd certainly give money to, but you don't because you're totally ignorant of it. It'll take a news article, a conversation with a friend, etc. to bring it to your attention, first. Petitions and activism are, among other things, ways of steering the attention of those in power. I doubt the AG would have taken action independently unless his attention has been so steered. Organizations like ICANN are not of perennial law enforcement interest.
celloductor 6y ago
well i heard it was because the AG was looking into PIR AND ICANN. And ICANN could not afford to get subpoenaed into handing over their financials- as any monopoly would.

by kick 6y ago

Waterluvian 6y ago

My non lawyer understanding is that Attorneys General effectively have an infinitely long list of crime to go after. The volume of outcry is an incredibly effective way to get your cause pushed up that list.

adrr 6y ago
I hope this doesn't stop the AG from completing their investigation of ICANN which is a non-profit based in California. They should still subpoena all the communications at ICANN related to the proposed ownership transfer of .org that is outlined in the original letter to ICANN. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ca-ago-to-icann-board-23jan20-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ca-ago-...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- syshum 6y ago
  I am sure that ICANN is hoping the matter is just dropped now.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    I am sure the PIR/ISOC and Ethos Capital are hoping this even more
    - rvnx 6y ago
      A couple of dozens of millions of dollars in lobbying to their favorite parties may help them to think the right way
    - sbarre 6y ago
      Yeah, unfortunately, the truth is probably that they are regrouping and planning a different and more defensible path to the same outcome, and will just try this again in a few years.
      - ohashi 6y ago
        ICANN did leave door open if they could convert PIR to a for profit in PA. I hope PA AG has something to say about this.
        LurkersWillLurk 6y ago
        Can you describe this door? The Pennsylvania AG is pretty good, although probably not as technically inclined.
        ohashi 6y ago
        If you read the end of the full statement (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-04-30-en https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2...) "If PIR is able to provide additional information that resolves the concerns raised by the Board, PIR remains able to re-submit or initiate a new Change of Control Request." That's how they concluded, leaving the door open if they can manage to get past this hurdle.
  - seganddr 6y ago
    What can be done to initiate a change in their leadership?
crazypython 6y ago
Then we should ask, can we fund them more? Moreover, if we don't live in California, can we lobby our states to help pay for the Cali AG?
- jerf 6y ago
  Having an "effectively infinite" list of crime isn't the result of a lack of funding, but the size of the set of things that technically constitute "crimes". Quadrupling their funding would still leave them with an effectively infinite amount of crime they could deal with. (This being another place where "unbounded" is probably a better word than "infinite"... there isn't literally an infinite amount of crime, but it is the case that pretty much no matter what they do, when they reach for another crime to prosecute, there will always be one there.) One of the subtle checks & balances in our system is that we don't even want prosecution to literally go after every crime... we want them to choose the things that are actually important. There's a lot of things labeled "crimes" today where the cost of enforcement greatly exceeds any value to society of that enforcement. (Expanding on that, one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem, with automated crime enforcement is that it removes this check & balance that almost nobody has even realized exists yet.)
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Rather than being a balance, doesn't this fact leave a giant hole open for biases and the influence of personal connections?
    - jerf 6y ago
      Yes, it does that too. It's an "and". That said, I will still take "biased human picking what to prosecute" over "a prosecution sufficiently funded to prosecute literally everything". I mean, sure, I'd prefer "real justice", but "biased human" is still constrained in their actions and has to produce enough results useful to society to be able to hide their corruption in, whereas totally perfect enforcement would be a nightmare.
      - 6y ago

thawaway1837 6y ago

Clearly the fact that ICANN board withheld consent is evidence that all the protesting and hoopla from the people opposed to the transfer of the .org domain was completely pointless. /sarcasm

hawaiian 6y ago

It feels good to win one.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

briefcomment 6y ago

On a related note, I often find that I don't know what to do if I want to help enact change at a level that's too far removed or high above me. There are a number of factors at play here: Sometimes, I'm not aware of the issue I don't know if the offending party is amenable at any level to changing their mind I don't know if something is possibly against the law (e.g. I didn't know the AG had a say until I say this post) I don't know if the authorities or avenues of dissent that I have access to have any jurisdiction over or effect on the offending party I often have very little insight into how others feel about the issue. I don't know how much work needs to be done to shift proceedings (e.g. how many people need to contact the AG for them to change their priorities) I don't know at what level I need to focus my efforts on (e.g. community, corporate, federal, ngo, etc.) Everything is scattered all around the place. For example, I saw this good idea in another HN post: "Would it be so hard to use less packaging on foods, especially snacks?". I have an opinion on this, but I don't know how to effectively voice it. Is there an existing system, or can we make a better system to most effectively turn our opinions on the matter into action?

dak1 6y ago
It's usually more effective to have specialized interests, since it's very rare to have agreement on multiple issues across a large population (this should be intuitive to the HN crowd, where every issue you add doubles the number of potential positions, even though they're not random). Find an organization that already exists and get involved in it. If one doesn't exist, create one. For packaging, you'd have a few potential avenues: 1. Work to build support politically. Even small groups of 30-40 people (or smaller) are very attractive for local politicians to meet and speak with. 2. Reach out to companies directly. 3. Get earned media (possibly in conjunction with 1 or 2). If you have small, achievable, reasonable goals, then it may even be a win-win scenario for all of the above, which makes it easier to make progress. For example, you could have a campaign goal of reducing x% of packaging to reduce y tons of waste. It could be positive media attention for a company to say they've worked with a group like yours (or a small local company!) to reduce packaging and help save the environment (and it may even save the company money). Finding ways for everyone to win and creating a big tent (as opposed to trying to influence by vilifying) tends to be more successful, in my experience.

dchyrdvh 6y ago

TBH, it's nothing to do with those lazy petitions. This happened because the CA's AG chose to be a good guy, leveraged his power and put a lot of effort into fighting the bad guys. I'm sure he's been offered fat kickbacks and received thinly veiled treats. After this stunt he won't be offered a high ranked corporate position to scheme shady things and won't be able to buy yachts and helicopters left and right. That's basically the price he's paid. I think attributing this win to some "voices" would be dishonest.

burkaman 6y ago
Why do you think AG Becerra chose to put some of his limited resources toward this issue?
- dchyrdvh 6y ago
  Because "in the world of souls there are two poles and between the two, wastes time and disappears into nothingness the majority of the humanity".
TheRealPomax 6y ago
So he made a sacrifice because, what, he just woke up one morning and felt like it? No. It's because the public brought it to his attention with enough public support to probably not hurt his career.
- kbenson 6y ago
  Sometimes it's because they woke up and felt like it. You don't immediately stop having having feelings about issues like you or me as soon as you're in the AG office. If that's just too wild to consider, it probably also looks good come next election.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Sometimes it's because they woke up and felt like it. You don't immediately stop having having feelings about issues like you or me as soon as you're in the AG office. Maybe, but probably not in this case. The idea being put forward here is the AG's actions had "it's nothing to do with those lazy petitions" and other kinds of activism. That's clearly false. There are literally millions of good causes and issues, and no one just wakes up and decides to help one in particular. They need to learn information about both the problem and the action, and that information needs to be brought to their attention. For instance, it's almost certain there's something like a charity that you'd certainly give money to, but you don't because you're totally ignorant of it. It'll take a news article, a conversation with a friend, etc. to bring it to your attention, first. Petitions and activism are, among other things, ways of steering the attention of those in power. I doubt the AG would have taken action independently unless his attention has been so steered. Organizations like ICANN are not of perennial law enforcement interest.

celloductor 6y ago

well i heard it was because the AG was looking into PIR AND ICANN. And ICANN could not afford to get subpoenaed into handing over their financials- as any monopoly would.