Suffice to say I'm quite happy it didn't turn out that way. The fundamentals of changing a viable nonprofit into a saddled-in-debt for-profit wasn't going to be fixed through PICs or other cosmetics, so that process would have failed miserably. And by the time the objection had run its course, the transaction would have been completed beyond the point of no return. It's a "what if" I'm really happy never came to pass.
How about having an ICANN that makes the right decisions at the outset, rather than anticipating failure and designing a massively bureaucratic appeal system?
The issue is, as Vittorio correctly identified, a fundamental flaw pre- AND post-transition. There is no built-in consideration (let alone protection) of the global public interest within ICANN governance. This problem is core to the character and culture of an ICANN that's designed to cater to the needs and wants of lobbyists and career insiders (hence the Orwellian named "empowered community"). Had ICANN maintained sufficient public-interest mechanisms in its decision-making, the AG would never have intervened. It was an extreme situation as it has never happened before in all the years ICANN has been a California corporation.
The system worked. The CA-AG was alerted that ICANN was not acting according to its charter to serve the public interest, and it ordered ICANN to do so. The situation can be prevented from repeating, but first ICANN has to admit it has a massive problem of being unaccountable outside its bubble.
If not to governments, then who? That's the challenge, and ALAC has a role to play should it be called upon. But the systemic mentality that (among other errors) enables ICANN to deny At-Large multiple Board seats has got to go. Perhaps it's time to go back to global elections for the ICANN Board, and to have a Nominating Committee that actually nominates (rather than selects). So long as ICANN denies the public interest in its decision-making, the interventions will (and should) occur.
(And keep in mind that no matter where ICANN is, it will always have a government overseer. Arguably Switzerland is tougher on its nonprofits than California.)