I am sorry that I am re-posting some of my thoughts again from previous thread (http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/19/publisher-charges-authors-for-retractions/#comments).
Basically, I believe that always competition is healthy. At least some of the new publishers (Hindawai, Co-action, Frontiers, etc) started to break the monopoly of the giants. It is a good sign for all of us. But I also strongly agree that these new publishers (which are mainly small start-up), are showing immaturity by launching so many journals (50,100,150…or so on). (in this case 355!!!!) If they really want to manage all the related journal operations ethically and rightly, then they should start with small numbers. They should make successful the first lot (3-6 only. Not more that that). Initial days, they are bound to do some mistakes. But if the number of journal is small, then amount of error will be less and then if you are sincere, you can correct those errors. Then apply those learning to launch next lot of journals (again not more that 3-6). Progressive learning and application of those learning makes things easier. This is the science. A big development can not come overnight. Whenever I see that a new publisher comes up with a fleet of journals, I imagine that this is going to again populate Beall’s list. Anyone related to journal publication, knows how difficult to manage religiously even the peer review formalities of 5 journals. Then for a serious publisher starting with 50/100 journals, will be nightmare. I think this trend started with Benatham Open, when they started 200/300 journal at a time some years ago. Too many journals mean too many errors. Then rectifying those errors will be next to impossible. Ten the publisher will slowly enter inside the darkness of academic criminal publishing.
Regarding allotment of ISSN: I am very much aware that from 2012 (June onwards), HQ of ISSN (Paris) advised all national centers to be alerted about low quality unethical journals. They requested to all centres to make some preliminary checks (valid editorial board, repeated papers from same author in the first issue, etc) before allotting ISSN. But I don’t know that whether you agree or not that Basic Principle of ISSN (According to the basic ISSN rules, all the publications which comply with the definition of a serial (i.e “continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete issues or parts, usually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion” [iii]) are eligible for ISSN assignment whatever their physical medium. Reference: http://www.issn.org/2-22635-What-is-an-ISSN.php).
Therefore, the basic goal of ISSN is something different than stopping these predatory publishers. But I also agree that rules can be changed as per the changed scenario.