I've started reading the paper and agree that it's very good!
It's interesting, however, to see how the theory was applied on Python and to establish the fairly easy analogy of the binding model. This analogy proves the good design choices Guido has made, but also reveals some weaknesses or the incompleteness of the current implementation. I hope to discuss this for Python 2 in due time and perhaps settle on a compromise which trades genericity for performance. The naming/binding problem drives the whole implementation logic in Python (objects, classes, scopes, etc.).
I'd like to hear what those weaknesses are in your eyes. I can think of two areas myself: (1) sys.path, $PYTHONPATH etc.; (2) class/instance attributes in the context of subclassing and evolution of the base class. (I don't expect the paper to take a stance on nested scopes.)
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)