The Security Council is a vital protection for the DAO against governance attacks, and I firmly support renewing it so it can continue to guard against them.
One Council member has publicly stated that he will sign an onchain transaction to veto the current ENS Foundation proposal if it passes without “wide support from non-Labs delegates.” This is not the Security Council’s role. The Council is a backstop to safeguard the ENS Constitution: smart contract exploits, governance captures that strip the DAO of its constitutional authorities, and protocol-level attacks of that kind. It is not a mechanism for individual members to veto governance proposals they happen to disagree with on substance. A duly ratified vote on a legitimate governance proposal that does not violate the ENS Constitution is not a governance attack.
Speaking personally: I will vote against any replacement Security Council that includes a member on record saying they would veto a proposal that does not violate the ENS Constitution. And I will vote against any replacement Council that does not commit to that standard publicly before the vote.