Hey Keith, an interesting case!
Yeah, I agree with Dien about an assumption about traditional job descriptions and that getting in the way.
As a Coach, I would have probably started with testing the proposal. Find out the concrete case that requires these domains. With that information, it would be easier to figure out the best pathway forward.
I'm also surprised that no one else objected to those domains. They seem too vague to be meaningful.
I would have objected to the accountability as a Facilitator as NVGO. I'd probably cite something like section 2.1, that a circle has a right to define its own contained roles.
In addition, this is making this circle/role accountable for the accountabilities of its contained circle/roles. Which basically means that the circle could create its own accountabilities without going through governance. I might cite section 3.2 to make that objection (because core circle members of the super-circle would not be given the chance to object to that governance change on its sub-circle).
Now, to fix this, the Rep Link of that new sub-circle might propose removing that accountability because it constrains how the circle organizes itself.
In addition, other roles at the super-circle could propose removing those domains.
In either case, bringing a new proposal to remove/modify the domains or accountability will give everyone another chance to revisit the proposer's original tension.
Hope that helps!