I do agree that anyone has the right to name a cultivar if he/she believes it merits that distinction. But I think there is a fine line between when and when not to name a plant. Like imduff said, I think the big key is distribution. If the plant is not going to be widely available, it makes no sense to give it a name. I could be wrong, but it seems at least some of the cultivars over the past few years have been bred solely to be nice, compact, easy-to-grow plants for the nursery mass-market trade, which I think is wrong. It's just my personal opinion, but I don't think growth habit should be considered when determining cultivar status. I think it should be based on color, shape, etc.
As far as what I personally would like to see. I think unique shapes are what I would be most interested in. You could have 1000 leuco/flava based hybrids, all nice and big with lots of color, but when you get down to it, they all have a similar shape and pretty much look the same. I would like to see more psittacina-based hybrids, not primary hybrids though. I've got two plants: a leuco x (psitt x rubra) and a leuco x (psitt x leuco) that have very unique shapes to them, not to mention the coloration. That is definitely an area I want to get into breeding, making plants that are 25% psittacina.