This is a very good question that has multiple answers that vary by individual, skiing skills, terrain and snow conditions. My ski quiver contains most of these answers! (as my wife reminds me I have more pairs of skis than toes) :-) I'm going to justify my ski gear decisions but by no means suggest they are "right." They were generally right for me on this trip in these conditions. I do suggest that each group member have similar gear if you want to maximize efficient travel. If you've even followed the skin track of someone with full length skins when you only have kickers you'll understand the frustration involved!
Skis: Travel efficiency is my primary consideration when choosing a skiing style, ski and binding. I want to keep moving as it covers miles and keeps me warm. I want gear I don't have to mess with. Kinetic bases limit the time I spend putting skins on/off on rolling terrain. Skin transitions take at least 5 minutes. These can be reduced if you're good at side stepping or herringboning but these techniques aren't as efficient–especially with a pack. I've skied Goode carbon fiber skis (including a pair in which I tried to carve a kinetic base) They are very light but a bit stiff for varying snow and they don't have a kinetic base. None of the light rando gear has kinetic bases.
Binding: I choose a telemark binding as having a free heel, in combination with a kinetic base, additionally helps limit transition time on rolling terrain. I have never skied AT style but I've skied with several people who do and nearly always I end up waiting for them to pick ice out of their boots and bindings during transitions. AT skiers have many more transitions even on moderate downhills–the fully free toe pivot that works so well uphill really sucks on downhill as many who've faceplanted can attest. The AT binding does give bomber control on steep downhill skiing but this is generally a small part of long backcountry tours. The telemark binding opens up the ability to get your weight low and widen your fore/aft stance which is valuable in irregular snow conditions. Not essential but valuable. I've been skiing telemark style for more than 20 years and for others parallel/AT techniques may be as comfortable.
Having just stood up for being able to use the telemark turn I'm not a telemark disciple. I use the telemark turn only if it most efficient–you'll see me making parallel turns, snowplows, stem christies, jump turns and kick turns (and even semi-purposeful "crash turns") if conditions dictate. Unfortunately telemark bindings (except simple three pin bindings) aren't as light as their AT counterparts. A simple three pin binding might be adequate for moderate terrain but I feel the extra weight of a three pin cable binding is worth the additional control and redundancy (if the pins rip out or the bail breaks you can still tour with the cable).
Skins: In most snow conditions kinetic bases can be used without skins. However a combination of icy and/or steep snow doesn't allow kinetic skis to grip and skins become necessary. I could probably get by with kicker/full width skins but full length skin lets me go more directly up steep stuff and traverse icy slopes with much greater security. The kicker skins let me glide/travel faster on icy flat->moderate terrain and are probably worth their extra weight. Whether to take one or both (and which one) is a debatable point and I debated it right up to the day we left. I still don't know the right answer.
I don't want to sound dogmatic. My choices were made based on my skiing skills, expected terrain and snow conditions. Others may make very different decisions. Had conditions been more solid and uniform, had there been less rolling terrain (and if I was willing not to use telemark gear) the gear you've suggested would be great. I drool and reconsider my choices everytime I see such light gear! I wish I had lighter kinetic-based telemark ski and binding combinations to choose from. I wish I had slightly stiffer, better insulated and lighter boots. However the extra ~3 pounds (which includes a wider longer ski for float–the ones you've quoted have a 64mm waist and 160cm length as opposed to mine which were 179cm and have a slightly wider 68mm waist) were more appropriate for the conditions I expected to face.
