It's the third plug that CCS uses. The whole point of NACS is that it is CCS.
It's going to be easy for everyone to support it because they support CCS already. Charger manufacturers like that. Charging networks like that. Car manufacturers like that.
Instead the NACS is the proprietary Tesla plug but using the CCS protocol instead of a CAN-based one. Practically this means that all superchargers remain compatible and it also means that all cars with the CCS plug are not compatible (unless the plug is changed or an adapter is used). Therefore your statement is misleading in addition to being plain wrong about „Type 3“. Tesla has, of course, always also supported the CCS outside of the United States, both inside the superchargers and inside the cars.
The NACS is not part of CCS.
The plug type is not part of CCS either.
And what you called „Type 3“ is in fact a completely different plug that uses this name as standard.
Perhaps this might help explain why you both are saying similar things in different ways and maybe just talking past each other:
CCS doesn't exist as a standards body in and of itself. It's a joint effort by the North American SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and the European-based IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission). The CCS standard is actually sets of interoperable standards defined by both the SAE and the IEC built to work in tandem. There is no actual "CCS standards document" there are only SAE standards and IEC standards, but if the joint CCS work does its job they interlock to form one worldwide mega-standard which we call CCS because it useful to name the combined Voltron form.
The NACS plug is in the final drafting process of becoming a recognized SAE standard. In that SAE standards (help) define the CCS standard, NACS is being standardized as a part of CCS, or at least the part that SAE controls/owns. Whether or not you can name it "CCS" depends on what you think the name CCS stands for. SAE and IEC always had different plug standards, so in that regard NACS isn't new to CCS and is a normal part of CCS because whatever SAE says is the North American standard plug is the CCS plug in North America. On the flipside with naming, is branding and NACS clearly has its own brand name and development history. It was developed for Tesla initially. It was opened under the brand name "NACS" to help sell it to the rest of manufacturing. "North American Charging Standard" was an intentional PR move. Because it wasn't intentionally developed for being called "CCS" and because it has a strong brand name of its own, does that mean you can't call it "CCS"? (A rose by any other name, right?)
When that standard is finalized it will be the third type of plug that has a practical rollout. Does that make it the real "Type 3" as opposed to the older prototype that didn't make it past standards processes? Do we want that to call it "CCS Type 3" in the long run to reduce confusion? If "CCS Type 1" is truly dead, but is also the standardized name for "Plug that North America uses and is SAE standardized" should we refer to it as "CCS Type 1 2.0" or something like that?
Names are one of the hardest problems to solve. But to recap the facts: NACS will be as close to a part of the CCS standard as it gets (because it will be an SAE standard), and is a new type of plug now directly related to the CCS standard. Whether you want to call NACS a part of CCS is a matter of perspective and branding as much as "standards" on the ground.
What's happening in North America is that everyone will use CCS with Tesla's plug on the end. It's CCS type 3.
Older Teslas will need a retrofit to be able to talk CCS. Tesla chargers will still support Tesla's now dead protocol.