Not sure about the slip into the conditional if it's a recommendation. In my head I have it as: "It is recommended that: 1. The Network [should] take... 7. The Network facilitate..." The "could" I find awkward and a good deal weaker.

What's the relationship between "the Network" and the "DH practitioners"? Who belongs to the Network, who runs it, to whom is it accountable?

what does this mean?

How will they? What are the steps to ensure this? Who has the authority to direct this?

Advocacy with whom? HEIs, funders, government? Who, ultimately, is responsible for (DH) infrastructure, software and data? The phrasing of this recommendation emphasizes cooperation and common goals, which, while appropriate for describing DH work, goes against a HEI funding model that puts the onus on novelty and difference.

How will this be achieved? For sure, subject disciplines and individual universities need to do better to acknowledge and reward DH work, but is this Network going to have the clout to influence decision making and accreditation?

What would that look like? Do you mean quotas? Representation on boards?

Conduct advocacy with whom? Does the Network see itself as a broker between the DH community (however that's defined) and HEIs and/or funders and/or government? Who ultimately builds / is responsible for the infrastructure, software, data, etc.? Individual projects, HEIs, funders...? The way this recommendation is phrased suggests a cooperative (consensual, even) community, yet funding is awarded on the basis of competition in ways that tend to emphasise novelty and difference (rather than, say, reuse or adaption).

https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/599943

https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/560353