Alissa,
I'll give you my thoughts on the various questions, although these are not official answers of the CWG:
1. Timeline: It's unclear if Manal is asking about the timeline for the estimate or for the underlying project. For the estimate, counsel to the CWG (Sidley) responded yesterday on another estimate request made at the same time, and said they would respond shortly to this request. For the underlying project, I think it's premature to come up with a specific timeline until we engage counsel and talk timing with them. That said, everyone understands this needs to be expedited to coordinate with the ICG.
2. Fallback Plan: I don't think there's any need to formulate a backup plan. I am highly confident that we will get the help we need from Sidley with an appropriate time and cost. They've been working closely with us; they know they need to be pragmatic and cost-effective. Also, ICANN has said that they will give this project the support it needs, so the concept of "out of budget" doesn't strictly apply. That said, this is not a "blank check," and if the estimate seems excessive, I'm sure we'll push back and quickly get it right. It would be presumptuous of me to speculate on a back-up plan in the exceptionally unlikely event that we decide not to assign Sidley this particular task; I'll just reiterate that I think it is unnecessary and even a tad alarmist to focus on this.
3. As for Milton's question, "why would CWG be seriously considering options that are going to cause compatibility problems" with the CRISP proposal? I believe the CWG has a duty and an obligation to come to its own understanding of the facts and the law, and then to come to its own conclusions. As has been well stated by our Chairs, the CWG has not yet formed a view. Implicit in this, the CWG has not formed a view on the CRISP proposal. It would be highly inappropriate to pressure the CWG to "go along to get along," to accept another community's position just because it showed up first, and not on the basis of actual deliberation and understanding. The CRISP proposal does not form any kind of "status quo." Indeed, the "status quo" is that ICANN owns the trademarks and domain names. Although the RFP asked us to maintain the status quo unless there specific, well-explained reasons not to, I think that the CWG should approach this question with an open mind, without giving weight to either the status quo or the CRISP proposal. If the CWG comes up with a different proposal than the CRISP proposal, the ICG should also approach this situation with an open mind, and facilitate a determination by the communities and the ICG of how to resolve any incompatibility.
Greg