This is interesting! I am asking the same questions put to the list by Dev. What is the basis of the objection LACRALO is being asked to support? Where is that resolved?
I have read the ALAC Statement now in line for the vote and other than my own feeling that one could get lost in the weeds here, it appears thoughtful but breaks no new ground.
However, this evinces why LACRALO policy WGs are not very useful for process. The ALAC Statement was developed from comments in the CPWG specific to the SubPRO WG Supplemental Report. Those of us who caucus with the GNSO-chartered SubPro WG would be familiar with the arguments raised there.
If the intent of the unknown LACRALO statement is to influence the ALAC vote, this late run - and I cannot even extract what it means! - is too little and too late. To raise an objection now, at the time the ALAC vote is called, could properly be ignored by the rest of the At-Large world.
If some members feel strongly that the ALAC is misguided and /or in disrepute, said members can make their individual comments on the public comment page associated with the Report.
-Carlton Samuels
The University of the West Indies