A gated, centralised and unscalable Internet community whose lofty goals are directly undermined by cost and the core principles of security: weakest link.

Also, I cannot see how they could achieve critical mass without government intervention. I expect if they really do mean business to see some intense political lobbying or sidedoor via some government regulator or commission. It could even be that the intelligence services will love and push for this proposal for the centralisation of so many channels may make their work significantly easier.

No non-trivial corporate will go to the lengths requested without being required to or strong tangible benefits over what they already do and can cost-effectively procure in future. After all, there is nothing in the proposal that corporates cannot already do themselves.

In short, this seems to be at best a security industry playground and the founding companies business model as a play on security concerns subsidised by others, or at worst, security theater.

It would be very interesting to know Bruce Schneier's take on this...