• it is an interesting concept and the variant definitely has potential. It definitely makes much more sense than turning the stalemate into a win for the stronger side or something like that.
• however, I would hate to see it becoming anything more than a variant. First of all, Kramnik states one of the problems of modern chess is the heavy reliance on computer preparation. I think the introduction of this variant wouldn’t really solve this problem, but only serve as a temporary distraction. It would take some time, but an entirely new body of opening theory would inevitably develop and we would be back at square one.
• I think the only way of solving the problem of opening theory is Fischer Random, but I have my issues with that variant as well. A detailed argumentation of why I am so opposed to it is beyond the scope of this answer. My main problem is that Fischer Random – just like with the Kramnik’s variant –somehow disturbs the inherent harmony and logic of the game (also – are we sure every starting position offers equal chances to both sides?).
• this disturbance of the harmony and logic becomes apparent when we consider drawing as a result. one of Kramnik’s points is that the drawing percentage in Modern chess is very high and that new variation would offer more decisive results. My feeling is that this intentional ‘forcing’ of decisive results is against the nature of the game.
• I mean, I personally don’t have anything against draws in chess and can value a game in which both players played extremely well, even if it ended peacefully... IF BOTH PLAYERS DID GIVE THEIR ALL. I think the main contributor to the drawing percentage in chess is the psychology of the players, not the mechanics of the game.
• as tournaments like Isle of Man, World Cup or even Candidates show – when there is something to play for, we suddenly see a dramatic increase in the number of decisive games. I think it would be wiser to find a way to incentivize players to always give their best instead of trying to reinvent the rules of the game. Say, by introducing the 3-1-0 scoring system (3 points for the win, one point for a draw, zero for a loss). Or severely fining prearranged and quick draws.
• I mean, didn’t Alpha Zero show that the “normal” variation of the game has boundless potential? Is it really necessary to talk about the change of the rules when we are so far away from playing like deep neural networks (and will probably forever remain there)? As agadmator nicely put it:

• besides, this is not the first time in the history that there are talks about “drawing death” in chess. Already back in 1930s Capablanca and Lasker discussed the change of the rules (and I believe they even played a thematic exhibition in some variant). From today’s perspective, their fears look ridiculous.
• Last but not least, it is symptomatic that Kramnik suggested the change of the rules only AFTER he retired. This is a classic example of “listen what I talk, don’t look at what I do”, of a complete absence of the Skin in the game, a term coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb defined as follows:

What is Skin in the Game? The phrase is often mistaken for one-sided incentives: the promise of a bonus will make someone work harder for you. For the central attribute is symmetry: the balancing of incentives and disincentives, people should also be penalized if something for which they are responsible goes wrong and hurts others: he or she who wants a share of the benefits needs to also share some of the risks.

[1]

Or, as we would say here in Croatia:

It is much easier to brush the bushes with somebody else’s p*nis.

Footnotes