I know this is a draft, but you are seeking reviews of a proposal that has just a few weeks remaining before deployment (where "technical review" is pointless because the is not actually open unless you are an approved member), making it totally unworkable and irresponsible. For example, exactly how are other implementations supposed to adopt the BIP in such a short timeframe? For all the talk of how important "alternative implementations" are, how does this rash and rushed action promote an ecosystem of multiple implementors? By encouraging fast upgrades, you are actually centralizing the ecosystem even further. 

The linked coded doesn't uniquely identify itself on the network by user-agent, something all distinct implementations have done to date.

The draft BIP text looks like an afterthought and doesn't actually specify the proposal in enough detail to implement from the text. By contrast for example, BIP141 has a level of detail which allowed others to implement segwit without looking at any reference code (which consequently results to more confidence and testing of the specification all round). The Bitcoin system has a market cap of over $40bn supported by a robust and reliable network and your proposal is an offence to all Bitcoin has achieved because due to it's the strong foundations.

I cannot not support this proposal in the current form and timeline, nor do I support the coercion that has been used behind closed doors to try and gain more support (not limited to, but including approaching company investors to twist arms and veiled threats of blacklisting companies from further funding/collaboration).

I think the best you can hope for this hard fork proposal is for it to be quietly ignored.