I have the 1988 version, which differs ever so slightly over each revision (mine saying it is under 23B.1. (h)... I think they revise the book every 12 years...)
The reason I say the recommendation would be rejected is not because of the Botanical Congress, but more the people who grow, know, or describe the species... if this new "Cyp. malipoense" was described as a species nova, it would be implied (if one knew history of past placement of Paphiopedilum) that this had been found around the 1800's, and is assumed to be a synonym for Paph. malipoense...
an example: Cypripedium exul, which was described in 1892 by O'Brien, was later revised and placed as Paphiopedilum exul in 1896 by Rolfe. If one was to see an old drawing of this species, without knowing what Paph. exul truly looks like, but knowing many Cypripedium are now Paphiopedilum, it would be assumed the old synonym Cyp. exul really means Paph. exul
the comparison: Paphiopedilum malipoense was described in 1984, but the assumption of seeing the binary name "Cyp. malipoense" may suggest it is an older synonym, and is truly Paph. malipoense... though the suggestions in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are merely suggestions, the whole purpose of it all is to lessen confusion between related and un-related taxa, and have some uniform order... all this new "Cyp. malipoense" will cause is confusion (though apparently not here, as it is being well discussed)... there are other names that can be given, like a specific are in Yun Nan or in Malipo... or even name it after himself, he deserves it... =)
-Pat