Generally and without having the benefit of reading your document, AML and or KYC requirements are treated on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. You would probably need to factor obtaining a universal agreement between all of the governments and regional enforcement bodies of the world on the nature and scope of an acceptable set of policies before attempting to attach rules to the protocol. Clearly, when one country unilaterally places politicians of another country on banned lists and vice versa, for example, would create some problems with implementation and automating checks against banned lists produced by each country. 

While you could apply a 'home rule' approach, you would be pushing regulatory controls down to individuals transacting between each other without having to go through any regulated intermediaries. This means you have no way to enforce KYC or verify that the details are correct unless you create a system of third party checkers in each country who would enable transactions to proceed. To overcome all of this you would probably need some identity verification system in place first and to add extra fees into the network to pay for the maintenance of the system. 

As has already been pointed out, the above would lead to individual coins being tainted with previous ownership details creating the possibility for blacklists rendering some coins worthless and creating the possibility of these coins being passed on to unsuspecting users. All this goes against the spirit of monetary systems, so you are back to regulating end points as and when users come into contact with regulated entities. 

Lastly, it might be worth knowing that criminal liability can be placed on individuals responsible for implementing AML and KYC procedures and policies that do not work or allow criminals to circumvent the systems of controls.