I have two objections, one procedural and one technical:
A document that contains unresolved issues is not ready for CR, regardless of the technical content. If I were the W3M team, I would immediately reject the transition request as CR documents should be ready to be implemented with all of the issues resolved. If there are no findings during CR, then apart from typos or other minor editorial changes on that magnitude, the document should be ready for TR. This document is not in that state.
For the technical URI issue, the problem is that the Accept-Profile header content model is ambiguous, as there isn't a way to delimit URIs from the header parameters. The example in section 7.1.2 is:
This is one URI -- there's no way to know that the ; and beyond is not part of the urn.
The URIs need to be delimited in the same way as for Link headers.
My attack is simply to define a profile with ";q=1.0" as a part of the URI, and then it will take precedence over other profiles.
The issue can be addressed before CR, or it can be addressed during CR prompting a new CR period. I think the latter is preferable!