Absolutely. We have quite a few in our brief here.
I think the cabinet confidence issue is also an important one here. Many of the records that people are really interested in pertain to why government is doing what it's doing, how it's rationalizing those decisions, who is making those decisions and on what basis. Let's be honest: A lot of those records actually do pertain to the deliberations of cabinet.
Having what Mr. Rubin has characterized as a brick wall around cabinet confidences—I like that term—really does not serve the interests of the public's right to know. Definitely having some process so that this is no longer a sacrosanct provision but something that can be contested as a legitimate exception is important, I think.
The third thing, I would say, is imposing a harms test for the operation of exceptions rather than having categorical exceptions that deal with certain kinds of information. When information is withheld from the public—and it is our information; it's public information—it should be because releasing it would cause some kind of demonstrable harm, not simply because the government is exercising its power of secrecy.