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