even though your statement sounds legally just and correct, burden of proof falls on the defendant (in this case, accused members and the ctwug as entity). i think its called prepondering or something. it boils down to we would have to convince the arbitor of our innocence. it is also rather important to remember that icasa is not the plaintiff. they are, as governing body, effectively judge and jury.
from a legal stand point, all they would need is a witness to testify that someone was hosting or providing a service for a fee over the wug infrastructure, to put us in breach of NPO etc. then they can not only fine the culprit and the wug, but at their discretion shut the whole network down.