In 1991 the US government, because of lobbying, and not for technical reasons, mandated the OSI protocol suite in all interactions with the federal government.

Four years later as the internet began to rise tremendously in popularity because a) OSI protocols were not actually written, just specified and b) it actually worked, was easy to use, very cheap and worked very well.

Shortly, the US government dropped this OSI mandate and to date no communications with the US government via the OSI protocol suite has ever taken place, and mercifully the OSI protocol suite wandered away into oblivion.

But there's a lesson here that technical standards are driven to a very large extent by the market adoption of services, and not the state mandating a platform of ideas bought and paid for by a lobbying group.

If you provide a tool, people will use it if they find it useful and it may enjoy widespread popularity but fade out (ICQ) or it may have lasting power (email).

You and I may have opinions on how salamanders should grow, but it doesn't matter to the salamander. Similarly so, people are going to use tools they find useful, frankly, no matter what anyone thinks, or what policy is in place.

Prudence dictates going with the flow and working within that context rather than trying to stand in front of a herd of stampeding bulls in Pamplona and asking them to go the other direction.

Would the businesses involved here be as "open and transparent" as ICANN and disclose their lobbying budget to the light of day? Going back to the creation of ICANN and before? ICANN has a maddening way of somehow ending up doing what big business wants, contrary to its US government mandated charter of "measuring and implementing internet community consensus" as an continuation of the IANA did in this role previously by act of creation. Look at the ex parte submissions to this inquiry. That's where the trademark lobby perform best: in secret.