It's just a name.
Both the common and rare extremes of the naming spectrum can be annoying. Being a "Tom Jones" or "John Smith" could get pretty tedious, but at least they can adopt nicknames if they want, and filling out paperwork is a breeze for them.
I think too many people take names too seriously, as if they're sacred heirlooms passed down through the generations. That may work if your family is famous, but otherwise it's just tedious. At least when it's first names that are passed down, they tend to be common and unobtrusive. Tradition is fine and good, but I do not think a parent should value tradition over the annoyance a child would suffer having to spell the last name "Abusufait" or "Alexandropoul" countless times in a borderline-illiterate culture that frequently can't even spell real English words. (those two names were picked at random from the end of the census data)
Rare, exotic, or variant names tend to be hard to spell, and who knows what embarrassing or silly thing they might sound like in some other language. Variant names are the worst, though. A "Krysti" would have to spell her name with the NATO phonetic alphabet EVERY TIME it's asked for.
The U.S. Census has neat name datasets from the 2000 census, listing last names, males' first names, and females' first names by frequency.
It's just a name. I think parents should strive to find a happy compromise so that their kid will not get lost in a sea of "Jane Smiths", but also won't be subject to ridicule or google-searching as "Blu Skyy". If your kid really wants an exotic or un-spellable ethnic name, he or she can go by that nickname, and change it officially at 18 once (hopefully) wise enough to understand some of the implications of having those kinds of names in western society.
