Dear Councillors

>    1. *It seems strange that we [ccNSO] give feedback on a framework that
>    we have not participated in. Isn't it out of our scope?* From previous
>    letter from Tripti [page #9]

accepting (and agreeing with) the principle of non-interference, not responding
to this part makes sense to me.

>    2. Supporting ICANN's enforcement of contractual terms that could be
>    argued to regulate content in gTLDs. *I'm not sure if we can support or
>    not such a thing (scope), but we certainly express our opinion on ICANN's
>    mission.*
>    3. Supporting an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to clarify ICANN's
>    ability to do what was stated above in 2. *Without the potential text to
>    be used, it's very hard to say if we will support a Fundamental Bylaw
>    change in advance.*

The aforementioned principle does not apply here and given the risk of a spillover
effect, why would we not want to send a message for (I'd prefer 'dogmatic' over
'ideological') reasons?   Essence of that message being that we would expect
significant confusion among ccTLDs regarding such a move, so beyond the caveats
raised by Alejandra, we would not be able to predict a positive result.

Best regards
   Peter