One question

Thanks to the New York Times, here's what I know about the new definition of 'planet' proposed by the International Astronomical Union's Planet Definition Committee:

• The definition will, "expand at a stroke the family of planets from 9 to 12 and leave textbooks and charts in thousands of classrooms out of date."
  
• Michael E. Brown thinks that the definition is "...a mess."
  
• The definition, "would apply both inside and outside the solar system."
  
• The definition will be formally anounced today, was written by the Planet Definition Committee, and will be voted on this August 25.
  
• The definition comprises "four paragraphs and four footnotes" and has been said to "read as if it had been written by lawyers, not scientists."
  
• Some critics have suggested that 'roundness...is not a very interesting attribute to use in classifying astronomical bodies.'
  
• Supporters of the definition say that it is, "a nice solution that works both inside and outside the solar system."
  
• "The proposed definition would come as a relief to schoolchildren and others who have rallied to the cause of Pluto."
  
• There is, "a feature of the new definition that would bestow planetary status on Charon, a moon of Pluto." This is, somehow, related to the facts that "Charon is big enough for gravity to crush all other forces and make it round" and that "the center of gravity for Pluto and Charon is between them, not inside either one."
  
• Defenders of the proposed definition say that it is, "logical and not arbitrary."

So here's my question. What's the definition?