Looks Like Brown actually proposed something similar to the current definition before the conference. Seems his suggestion of a planetary name was just covering the bases. His comments here The Eight Planets make it clear Brown is supporting the new definition at his own expense. I disagree strongly with his comments for the two reasons below.

I have to ask how is his definition of a zone not arbitrary? Just because we define the Kuper belt as a Zone tens of AU's wide why does the whole terrestrial planet zone including the asteroid belt less than 5 AU wide not constitute a single zone? As I stated Before Pluto reigns supreme in a region of space greater than Earth does. The zone definition is more arbitrary than drawing a line at a particular size (something he doesn't seem to support) contrary to Brown's claims. It is also time dependent which Brown does not address. He does make comments about the need for a rigorous definition at the link others provided yet throws the only one he lists out for the reason below.

He throws out the roundness criterion which he states is good for one reason. "A potential large number of planets". He actually makes a good case for this criterion before throwing it out on the basis of potential numbers. Still waiting for ANYONE to answer the challenge what other scientific classification scheme has been based on the potential number of members in it?

On the basis of one issue not used in other scientific definitions a large number of Astronomers conclude we have to add a time dependent clearing zone rule using zone sizes that have no clear criterion except historical definitions. If all we are going to go on is history (a bad idea IMO) then we should increase the number of planets back up to those considered planets when discovered (Pluto and several asteroids).

Regards,
Mark