First, not all registrars assume the credit-card risk model, or pursue the defensive registration, or ad word markets.
Second, the advocates for no necessity or utility requirement, or some form of public interest test for would-be applicants, is far, far larger than the 20 to 40 registrars engaged in that advocacy agenda.
An analysis that does not start with the legacy monopoly registry operator, and continue to the operators of "open" (now "standard") registries, is simply ill-informed or advocacy art, missing the Registry Stakeholders Group as a mostly unified[1] policy advocate.
An analysis that does not continue from these materially interested contracted parties and include domainers, and the ideologically committed parties, whether motivated by "free trade", or "thousand flowers", is also simply ill-informed or advocacy art, missing the Non Commercial Stakeholders Group as a policy advocate.
Third, an analysis that fails to observe that the Internet Service Providers Stakeholder Group has no policy agenda at ICANN is curious when offered in a network operator group. It might be reasonable when commenting on a recent development in the Law of the Sea (but see also bouys have bits), but slightly absurd when commenting on a recent development in the corporation acting as a registry of unique network identifiers, autonomous system numbers, and protocol parameters.
Finally, because pancakes are calling, the very complainants of squatting and defensive registration (the 1Q million-in-revenue every applicant for an "open", now "standard" registry places in its bizplan), the Intellectual Property Stakeholder Group is also an advocate for trademark TLDs, arguing that possession of $fee and a registry platform contract (there is now a niche industry of boutique ".brand" operators-in-waiting) and a $bond establishes an absolute right to a label in the IANA root.
So, rather than memorizing the digits of Pi, for some later public recitation, one could start reciting brand names, for some later public recitation, for as long as there is a single unified root.
Have I managed to suggest that claims to sanity that are not exceeded by actual work are without foundation?
Eric
P.S. to Joel Jaeggli. You need to work harder. 20 bytes is less than sufficient to make any point usefully, and you missed .name/.pro, as well as the 2004 round .jobs/.travel as well as .asia/.tel, not as yet depurposed.
[1] Exception to the RySG "no public interest" advocacy are the few sponsored registries which were not covert open registries, and are not dependent upon open registry operators for registry services, viz. .cat, .coop, and .museum.