Technically speaking, an ICO simply means that your fundraising token happens to be on a block chain, and of course there is nothing wrong with that.
I think the fact that many of them are not being issued rightly speaks to the problems they are causing. People/entities love ICOs because they are easier to do than going through the rigmarole of registering and issuing a security, and apparently easier than crowdfunding as well. But therein lies the problem. Some of the "rigmarole" is actually very important for consumer protection. And if not required, people issuing ICOs may not take the time to figure out and voluntarily do all those consumer protection things. I'm not talking about the outright scams which intentionally defraud people, but more, those sincere ones which simply do not know what they're doing, quite frankly.
With that said, I'm not any more a fan of regulatory bureaucracy than anyone else. Ideally, the industry can self-regulate where it is considered right to check certain boxes when running your ICO, but we don't need the government necessarily to make sure that happens. I think the part in the DNotes Global plan where other companies can issue tokens on the DNotes block chain but only after being carefully vetted and selected by DNotes Global and then being mentored along in the process is one interesting way to make that happen.
ICOs will continue to have serious issues with much confusion for some time. Meanwhile, there will always be people who are ready to exploit the situation. I did a quick read of the white paper. Another interesting idea, but few good ideas are worth more than the cost of a cup of coffee.