Planet definition expected in Sept

Not sure if I've commented on the "raging" controversy in astronomic circles about some of the KBO (Kuiper Belt objects) orbiting our solar system outside the orbit of Pluto. Ths issue is that one such object, UB313, registers at about, or slightly larger in diameter than, our system's ninth planet. So, is this object planet or is Pluto actually not a planet? Discoverer Mike Brown of Calthch thinks it should be included, although it is 3 time more distant and inclined more than 45 degrees in its orbit than the other planets.

"All the newfound worlds—there are several known now—were until recently smaller than Pluto, but they are round and orbit the Sun, two characteristics that had for centuries been sufficient for the implicit definition of planet. The hitch: These small objects are typically on wild, elongated orbits that stretch well above and below the main plane of the solar system where eight of the traditional planets travel (Pluto has a wild orbit, too, which is one reason many astronomers do not consider it a planet anymore)."


In my visit to Kitt Peak Observatory last fall, the 2 astronomers giving the tour were split in their opinions. In one view, if it is round, orbits the Sun and is of sufficient mass, it should be. If such a definition were used, the list of planets may grow to the hundreds or possibly greater.
It does appear, however, that the new definition will probably include orbital characteristics and possibly formation scenarios.