No formal investigation into the ICANN corruption that led to this situation in the first place?
> To that end, my office conducted an investigation of ICANN and its role in approving the transfer of the .ORG Registry Agreement from the Public Interest Registry ("PIR") (the supporting organization to the Internet Society ("ISOC")) to Ethos Capital
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/AG%20...
That letter ends with a warning that the AG would "continue to evaluate" the matter. Considering the ICANN board rejected the sale April 30[1], two weeks after the letter, I suspect the AG's office is no longer looking into the matter. Because the sale was never completed, and everything else seems to be business as usual, I don't think there's anything for the AG to continue looking into. The AG's job is to make sure charitable trusts adhere to their purpose, not to police potential impropriety that doesn't materially effect the trust. (They basically play the role of a shareholder, who in regular corporations can sue if the corporation doesn't adhere to the articles of incorporation; or the role of a beneficiary in a regular trust, who can sue if the trustee misappropriates the assets.) I'm also not sure if there's any criminal exposure here. Usually self-dealing is a civil matter, even for charitable trusts, unless it involves some other criminal act--e.g. fraud, but in this case nobody really thinks the board was being duped by the former ICANN CEO. If there was potential criminality then probably the AG wasn't confident it could make a case beyond a reasonable doubt without an actual sale and evidence about how .org would have been administered in fact.
[1] https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2.... Announcement at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-board-withholds-consen...
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any "formal investigation" will be a temporary fix at best. ICANN can do what it wants and it always will.
No thanks.