No specific objections other than I don't know what the good treaty-specific neg ground is against most of those. CTBT is probably still legit, I'll trust Arnett on that one. Plus there's always Kato.
My understanding is that most of the rest only face political and not substantive opposition (other than from the Phyllis Schlaflys of the world and the black helicopter crowd).
If I remember correctly, CEDAW wasn't included last time because it was deemed to be too aff biased. There is definitely a lot of literature on this, but it's not really very good. I did some work on it during treaties because Fullerton (I believe) ran it as an aff. Most of the better neg arguments I found that were only mildly crazy were not really enough not to outweigh the aff or they relied on spilling over to things like Don't Ask Don't Tell which is no longer relevant.
LOST seems like it is more equally divided than the rest, mainly because it's tough to outweigh the Moon DA. So sure, this seems fine.
Ottawa was an aff that a lab of mine wrote once and I wasn't convinced then that the neg had any good arguments - the topic paper from last year concedes it's an old debate. But there are relevant changes that make it even more aff biased - like the fact that control of landmines in Korea has been transferred to South Korea, so the North Korea DA doesn't make sense anymore. And since 67+ Senators urged Obama to ratify it a year ago, the politics DA goes the other way from the topic paper.
For CRC, the treaty-specific arguments listed in the paper are politics, federalism w/r/t family law, a treaty tradeoff DA that presumes the GOP is about to ratify the CEDAW, treaties bad, and no enforcement.
I honestly am not trying to pick on your paper - or the treaties topic. I loved the last treaties topic and am just worried about the leftovers topic. But I wanted to at least play Zizek's advocate against the idea that any treaties topic is a good topic in the hopes of generating some more specific discussion since this seems likely to be a popular topic. I'm mostly worried that even though there is a lot of literature on some of these treaties, the actual arguments contained therein aren't strong enough to dissuade reliance on process/ubergenerics, which was the main selling point of the last treaties topic.