Although the many benefits of new top-level domains are obvious to many, and although
they are central to ICANN’s mandate, still there are doubters who with great intensity
plead their special interests.

Looking at this list, it is a list of special interests.  Registrars, registries, companies trying to create registries.

I don’t however see ICA, which is supposed to be representing domain holder interests.  It is quite clear the companies who signed are the ones with the most to gain from new TLDs.  I don’t see much push from anyone else.  I also find the arguments in favor of implementing them as weak as the ICANN IRT.

  * Growing consumer demand
There are plenty of TLDs and names still out there, does everyone being able to get ‘their name of choice’ dot ‘something’ make the internet more useful?  My suspicion is that it would in fact create more consumer confusion.  We still get TYPE IN traffic on domain names when people mean to search for something.  Adding MORE tlds certainly isn’t going to magically make consumers smarter, it’s going to add to the chaos and make it worse.  The technological trend has been away from domain names for a while now, search is the way people find things.  Sure domains are a direct way to navigate and people market them, brand them and use them, but it’s not an inherent problem.  We certainly aren’t running out.
  * Sky-high prices for decent domain names
Supply-Demand.  Lots of new TLDs just adds confusion, who really gains?  Registrars/registries and those providing the service.
  * Additional safeguards against Internet crime, built into new top-level domains
That’s just scare mongering.  Protections built into TLDs, authenticating blah blah.  Secure sites get hacked.  The best software on earth has vulnerabilities at some level.  There are plenty of ways to already make your site more secure, claiming a TLD is a solution is simply scaremongering to earn more cash.
  * The frightening prospect of a split root and multiple internets that don’t work together
New.net certainly broke it apart.
  * Foster innovation in the domain namespace and create thousands of jobs
Thousands of jobs for who and what purpose?  If there is no real value added to society in general, it’s as wasteful as a bank bailout.  Innovation in the domain space - sure there might be a couple innovative ones, but how many are simply planing on cashing in on defensive registrations?  The whole purpose of these new TLDs is to simply cash in the basic math people have run time and time again on what happens in a land rush situation.

It’s all just a giant money grabbing attempt by pretty much your list of the undersigned and to parade it around as anything else is dubious at best.

Instead of commissioning yet more studies to prove the obvious demand for new toplevel
domains, ICANN’s Board of Directors should instead believe the evidence of the
market, heed their own staff reports, and read the conclusions of the many studies already
conducted – and approve the introduction of new top-level domains without further
delay.

ICANN has constantly, since its inception, re-invented itself to be more transparent, more
democratic, and more responsive to its mandate of bottom-up policy development. The
U.S. Government (among others) has been vocal in its insistence that ICANN follow this
mandate.

That one report that has been called into question even by some of the people on your list: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090426_icann_irt_report_comment_short_timeframe/  namely about the way it was drafted, the comment period, lack of transparency, pretty much everything ICANN is supposed to do.  So you are simply advocating ICANN do what it’s supposed to do, but only when it’s in your financial interest.

You also cite facebook as an example and claim more registrations than .COM.  So TLDs are irrelevant, the innovation train goes on with or without new TLDs.  That’s not an argument in favor, that’s merely a story where you’ve spun what actually happened into something else to support your argument.

The consumer doesn’t know that they demand it.  Your argument is growing consumer demand.  This seems hypocritical.  Do they want it or don’t they?  You claim reports should be followed and implemented and then discount reports and predictions as bad indicators.  The logic of your argument fails.

Another point on consumers not getting their name of choice.  Ok, that’s terrible, but we can’t all name our companies the same thing.  Domains are supposed to be unique.  I have never seen anyone say ‘I cannot get my first choice domain name, I won’t pursue this venture.’  In fact, in my experience with most small business people, entrepreneurs and other non-corporate people they have been creative and found something available.  Very few actually consider purchasing on the secondary market.  Scarcity in fact DRIVES innovation.

Businesses and organization will be able to get meaningful domain names in
extensions that are relevant to their activities. For example, United Capital, who
lost out to United Airlines for united.com, may be able to get united.fund.

Or UnitedCapital.com You think consumers are going to know what extension to use for every type of company?  I need my bank or was it a credit union? .bank? .creditunion? .cu? .fund? Is my credit card also under the same extension?

Combined with what we know about demand for newly-introduced ccTLDs and the
astonishing uptake on Facebook URLs, they provide very significant evidence that new
top-level domains will be met with widespread consumer adoption.

Studies about economic demand are at best hazy, and at worst misleading,
as studies about the future will inevitably prove only that people are poor at predicting it.

@Kevin Ohashi - Thanks for lengthy quotes ;)

You say, “Scarcity drives innovation.”

Trouble is, this is not an episode of McGyver, a contest to see how clever people can be with only a limited set of tools.  While you’re absolutely right that no-one with a good business idea quit because they could only get a bad name, think how much better they might have done with a good one.

If you think Gravee, Profilactic, Fairtilizer, Oyogi, Hoooka, Thoof, Weebly, Yoono, Zlio, Diigo, Heekya, Jiglu, Mzinga, Insala, Ooooj, Oooooc, Oovoo, Sclipo, Twones, Yuntaa, Soonr, Pluggd, Gtalkr, Mpire, and Zooomr are desirable names, either for the company (these are all existing Web 2.0-type companies) or for the consumer, then you have a phenomenal memory.  I’ve typed all these names in, and I still can’t remember any of them.  That’s a Very Bad Thing when it comes to a brand.

I am fascinated by the question, “Is this good for society?”  I’ve heard it before.  Personally, I think it *is* good, but it’s a question that just doesn’t get asked in other contexts.  Does anyone ask, “Is another brand of HD TVs good for society?” or “Does society need a new version of Windows?”  I’ve never once heard this line of questioning, and yet when it comes to top-level domain names suddenly the most ardent free-market capitalists seems to revert to a command-economy mindset.

As to the signatories being “money-grabbing”:  Those who are “in” an industry are typically those who care about it, think about it, write about it, and yes, make a living with it.  In the domain name industry, this is true of both sides of this question. 

From the comments that you made, and because you mention the Internet Commerce Assocation trade association, and because your blog has a lot of domain-related content (including a screenshot of a bunch of your names with eNom), I would guess that you’re a domainer, or at least that you use domain names a lot as part of your web-development business.  Perhaps you too have a stake in this, and are not a completely disinterested party.  That’s fine—everyone has to make a living.

Actually, a lot of signatories to our letter (18 by my count) don’t have a money stake in this, or a very minor one at most.  If you look through the list and check out who they are (Google is your friend), you can verify this. You could even argue that some of them (ccTLD operators) might even be adversely affected by new top-level domains. 

Anyway, thank you for the comment.

@Kevin Ohashi - it’s a public forum, and you are free to disagree.  I think the arguments are compelling and speak for themselves.  Introductions of repurposed ccTLDs have been highly successful (think .ME), and I think new gTLDs will meet with the same high rate of adoption.