I don't think they proposed one, but I think it's clear from comments elsehwere that those opposed to the approved definition think the original proposal was better. I certainly do. The problems with the original were for the most part as far as I can tell:

1) Promoting Charon to planet status

2) Keeping Pluto a planet

3) A potential for a large number of planets

4) Some of the proposed terminology

I agree with the attitude towards 4. Some of the terms were bad and needed revision.

2 was simply a bias issue. Whether or not Pluto remains a planet should not be the focus. The focus should have been can we define a planet in a way that makes sense then see which bodies in the solar system meet that criteria.

3 is purely bogus. That is not a standard used anywhere else in science definitions that I know of and not a single person here who has said something similar has addressed that.

On the issue of 1 I'm ambivalent. I could accept a definition that allowed double planets or one that didn't. If Pluto and Charon both meet the definition for a planet and you're going to allow double planets it makes sense that the Pluto Charon system would be one. Would we reallly want a definition that made a Jupiter/Saturn sized coorbital system not a double planet? Can you make a simple definition that would allow that but not Pluto/Charon?

If it took dropping issue one to pass the original proposal I could definitely accept that. If an alternative with clear criterion that distinguished planets from their building blocks that didn't include Pluto I could accpt that as well. Making it time dependent based on what's around the potential planet makes absolutely no sense to me.

Regards,
Mark