That's an interesting and valid question. I'll try to answer as best I can, not just to satisfy your curiosity but to get my own thoughts in order as well.
In a word: Honesty.
The org's origins are not quite as innocent as they would have you believe. They don't need to gloss over things like Russell's fixation with pyramidology, his ever changing of dates, Rutherford's alchohol abuse, Beth-Sarim... We encourage new ones to analyze the origins of their beleifs and to abandon them if they have pagan origins. What about us and our origins?
Also, we would be privy to how the governing body operates, it's methods for arriving to conclusions, how many votes are required for a change to be made, etc.
A new policy of zero tolerance for child abuse and pedophilia should be put into effect. And all cases or accusations of abuse should be reported to the authorities. These are legal matters, let the law deal with them.
The ban on blood should be re-visited. If in fact, they have correctly interpreted Hebrews 15 and "to abstain from blodd" means having no blood at all, than alowing blood fractions makes no sense. Either it's wrong to take blood or not, which is it? And what to do with those who died for refusing fractions before the "new light"? Is the Society blood guilty fot their deaths? And those who refused organ transplants and vaccinations, when the "current truth" banned them, and got ill or died because of it, are they guilty for them as well? What do you think?
Did you know there is absolutely no historical evidence for stating that Nebuchadnezar destroyed Jerusalem in 606/607 BCE as we have been taught. NONE! There is no dispute among schollars, Jerusalem fell in 586/587 BCE and there is a lot of evidence to back this up. The only organization that says it happend in 607 BCE is the WT. Why? This date fits nicely with their pointing to 1914 as the bith of the Kingdom. Without this invented date there is no 1914. Can you imagine Jehovah's Witnesses w/o 1914?
We deserve to hear from the Society what their true involvement with the UN's Department of Public Information was. We know the truth, the evidence speaks for itself, but an admission and and apology from the GB would go a long way.
So to sum it up again: Honesty
Oh and "love without hypocrysy" that would be nice. Let's get back to basics. Put aside all the rules and regulations and focus on what Jesus said would sum up the law and the prophets: love God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves.
Since I don't think any of this happening I can no longer, in good conscience, invite others to share these beliefs. So I no longer go out in service. I can't take a true stand for these things w/o the fear of being DF'd anf loosing my loved ones. But I can at least not share in the Society's guilt of deceiving any others.