Dear All, Since our important discussions of last week, a group has been working in the background to try to figure out a set of rules that would not bring ICANN directly into the Reveal process (the "Complex Case Advisory Group" concept) and that would not force Providers to voluntarily share and pool information and advice (something with potential competition implications). What we would propose is the addition of a standard to Section III, /Service Provider Action on Request /-- that the PPSAI Reveal under Category F be limited to "slam dunk" cases of obvious clear-cut infringement. Our model here is the light-weight URS procedure for suspending names in the New gTLDs. What we mean by "slam dunk" cases is cases of obvious clear-cut trademark and copyright infringement presented by the Requestor without clear or reasonable defenses presented by the Customer or visible to the Provider. The defenses set out for the URS include: that the registrant is commonly known by the name of the domain name (e.g., it is a his/her last names or longterm nickname), he/she/it is using the domain name and/or mark before the trademark existed, there is fair use or fair dealing, parody or tribute sites. Legitimate defenses might also include comparative advertising -- using a competitor's name in advertising comparing products or services in countries which such ads are legal. We further propose the addition of language to allow the Provider to take action of its own accord and the wording: "Nothing in this proposal shall prohibit a provider from determining the use of the service may violate its terms of service and reveal the underlying information despite the criteria of this proposal not being met." We have worked hard since our last meeting, and diligently over the weekend, and hope this moves us towards a reasonable and compromise. Best, Kathy