Hi,

some observations:

1. The plan as presented is not framed within either LACRALO's Strategic Plan for the same period nor (at least not explicitly) to any other ICANN plans, whether At Large or ICANN-org. This should be remedied ASAP for a second round of comments.
2. There are no quantitative, measurable goals (remember the acronym SMART); this should be remedied by the drafting party.
3. The plan does not clearly link actions to the "Policy First" Agenda agreed in the General Assembly of 2023 as well as in the process of 2014-2016. Every action by LACRALO has to be explained, measured, and assessed according to its clear causal linkage to policy production in formal PDPs. Which leads to the next:
4. There is no clear Theory of Change between the proposed actions and their effects for the above mentioned. 
5. One goal that must be included is a quantitative goal of bringing in new organizations as ALSs. There is a perverse incentive for each country's presently existing ALS to avoid recruiting new organizations as ALS, as this would divide the weight of their votes by half. It will be argued that this is particularly difficult to achieve in countries with small populations, to the disadvantage of those with a rich, thriving technical and social community around the Internet; still the goal must be to add at least one ALS per country in the following 12 months. 
6. There is no measure of transparency and accountability for the participants, as to actually taking up the activity agreed, assessing its quality, relevance, and impact with the intended audience, and feedback from said audience. This reinforces the impression that LACRALO refuses any measure of accountability. So be it as long as it is thought that LACRALO is an isolated entity. However, this reflects badly on the perception of the At-Large in general, and of ICANN in a broader sense, and even more impactfully, on the multistakeholder processes in general. In the year that the GDC and related UN SG and AG processes are being launced LACRALO would be doing a great disservice to the Internet governance community by not being scrupulously disciplined in this respect. So, the plan must include such measures as well in the next draft to be circulated with time enough for comments before the June 7 deadline.