transparency would be a good thing, yeah.
Aren't there existing laws with respect to companies doing international business? In the USA (well in Cali-fornicate-you at least) you have to file a statement of information with the state indicating who the primary corporate officers are, mostly for legal purposes.
So I would expect something similar, here.
There are also laws _AGAINST_ borrowing money to buy stock. That one dates back to the 1930's, something about unsecured loans being used to fund stock purchase and after a crash the banks have no cash...
Purchase of a company, I suppose, CAN be financed, if it's not through stock... though it _DOES_ seem to be a bit "shady" in that regard. But that's between the lender and the borrower I suppose, and I doubt the loan is without any kind of collateral.
Still I would expect that much of this "must be a non-profit" stuff is a complete misunderstanding of for-profit vs non-profit. Seriously, I bet a for-profit corporation could do the job at LOWER COST TO THE END USER than a non-profit one, simply because they have budgets and investors and bottom lines and need for revenue. And there is a LOT of competition out there for domain names.
And from MY experience with a non-profit, they're sometimes run by COMPLETE IDIOTS when it comes to things like spending money, retaining employees, and even JUST GETTING THINGS DONE.