Initial reaction is bad idea, it's not as simple as moving the start and close times back a few hours.
Weather. The conditions could be a factor, evening cold and dew kind of factors replacing bad light as an interruption.
Cost. May sound daft, but heating and lighting facilities would cost an arm and a leg compared to the day when, well, you generally don't use lights or heating.
Spectators. You may have to take the day off to go to the cricket, how do you work this one? Travelling around lunchtime is not much better than rush hour in England, travelling back would be clearer but you'd be tired and driving in the dark. Who wants to be travelling home at gone midnight in the dark and tired because they would usually be asleep?
Players. Nice to abuse their bodies with shifts from day to day-night and back again. You'd expect it to be cooler in the evening in some countries, but could be downright freezing in England. It would bring a whole new meaning to the word "nightwatchman"
TV. Maybe it would appeal to some in other parts of the world, perhaps the idea is so cricket is played at time sthe Indian sub-continent could all sit and watch it. Are those who watch cricket on TV going to stay up until the small hours? I tend to have less interest in any cricket that isn't starting in the morning, I watch TV, do something else or go out in the evening and so should cricketers and the fools who went for this. The potential for clashes with normal TV is unmeasurable, as if it doesn't clash with football on weekends then it could be competing with it midweek......................
Advantage. Where is it? I can't see one other than perhaps avoiding bad light. Spectators may go for day-night ODIs, but that's somewhat different. Just because ODIs work as day-night, doesn't mean Tests would. And if grounds are empty for Tests outside of England, then who says they will be any fuller at night - did anyone do a cost-benefit analysis and what could they have based it on?!?!