Concerning 1., the person don't understand what Governance is, so there is the need of a coaching. For example, an accountability says absolutely nothing about how much time you will spend on it, or how you will do it. If it is the role creation, and the person says he/she does not have time, well, we are in Governance, we are not talking about who is gonna to energize that role, it will be the Lead Link problem after in operations (or other if you delegate the accountability). So there is just a point of coaching needed, and if you don't arrive, the simplest is to integrate it.
2. As long as the proposal solve the tension of the Proposer, what's the point ? Would it moves us backwards ? We are strictly focus on the tension of the Proposer, and if the Proposer propose that, and that it solve his/her tension, it is perfect. We don't want something perfect, because we know we can change everything at every time. After I don't have the entire context, so I may be wrong. But if the Proposal is valid, that the Proposer does have a concret tension, concret example and that it does limit one of its role, and that you don't see any reasons why it would cause harm or move us backward, I don't see the problem.
3. First, I would say “ensuring”, and it is not really a durable action, but after it is my interpretation.
So it would be an explicit expectation from a role, that needs role x to meet sales targets ? After it is up to you if you consider that it would moves us backwards. But if the objection pass the test, I would just integrate it, and focusing on the tension, the concrete case to propose something that will continue to solve the tension of the Proposer and of the Objector.
Sorry if there is some mistakes,
Hope that help,
Have a nice day,