It does rather sound like everyone is arguing this point from a perspective of this new policy being some cast-in-stone notion that will never change. I read it more as a first pass, utilising very simple and easily available metrics to try and limit a behaviour that most recognise as generally harmful to the community. That doesn't seem like a terrible thing.
Could it be refined? Yes - Zolgar's suggestion is a good step in that direction. I believe I also read a suggestion of some mechanism to hold things down for those people who know they are going to be unable to access the game for a while. Sorry not to credit you but also an excellent idea.
What we have to face, though, is with each improvement added (and I'm sure there are more than the two above) - there is an added burden on those people coding up the back end. I have a great deal of trust in them wanting to improve things and in their capability to do so but we have to recognize that their time is not a bottomless well that we can draw upon. In that light, I really like the idea of a quick-and-simple fix now (as proposed in the original policy) along with something more nuanced and complex later on. The advantage is that those later enhancements to the policy can be conceived of with experience of the limitations of a more simplistic and immediate one.
In the short term, it is unlikely that many people will be inconvenienced to any significant degree (no one in the first 30 days) and even for those who would have character names at risk after those first 30 days, they are at risk and not necessarily immediate threat of loss unless there just happens to be someone lined up and desperate to grab that name right now. That seems statistically unlikely, to say the least. Worst case scenario? You have to change a name on a character. That might be a bit of a pain but it's hardly the world falling in.
I know it can be frustrating to not be able to use the name you want. The name I used way back in the day for my main was taken by the time I got to Homecoming and it was a bit of a blow. However, it's not the end of the world, no matter how it comes about.
At the end of the day:
Will this policy cause a positive outcome for a significant number of players by freeing up names locked out by abandoned characters? Probably.
Will this policy cause a negative outcome for a significant number of players who are totally not using placeholders to hoard names? Probably not.
Can the policy be improved upon with more work by the dev team? Almost certainly
Is the policy set in stone for all time? What I have read suggests not
What the above suggests is that the policy is probably a good first step (and almost certainly not a final one) in balancing the community's needs regarding character names. It's not going to meet everyone's needs but, on balance, there's more good than bad to it. If it can evolve over time (and I see no reason why not) then we're likely to find an even more comfortable compromise as we go forwards.