Summary: Has a DISCUSS. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved.
Why is this document not in the Standards Track? I ask because I think that the definition of a well-known community (one which has "global significance and their operations shall be implemented in any community-attribute-aware BGP speaker" [rfc1997], in other words, everywhere!) should result in a Standards Track specification, and not in an Informational document. I couldn't find any specific justification for the status in the writeups (Shepherd or Ballot), nor a related discussion in the archive. To resolve this DISCUSS, I would prefer to see a change in the status, but will yield to WG consensus (so a pointer to that discussion would be enough).
Nit: It would be very nice if the appendices were referenced in the text.
I'm balloting "yes" because I think it's important to publish this. But, like Alvaro, I wonder why this is not standards track, BCP, or just about anything but informational. So I support his DISCUSS, including his the comments on how to resolve it. -1, last paragraph: This references RFC 8174, but does not use the actual 8174 boilerplate. Is there a reason not to do so?
I also believe this should be standards track. Or is there any good reason why it should not be standards track similar as other docs that define well known communities?