Seun,

I'm not sure I get your analogy.  Are the firms too good, or are the teams they proposed too large?  If it's the former (too good), I think we need the best advice we can get -- this is a complex and unique situation -- hardly "two shovels of sand."  (It's more like transporting fragile, precious and specialized cargo.)  If it's the latter (too large), rest assured that we will not be working with the whole team at every turn.  I expect that most of our time will be spent with one or two lawyers.  The rest of the team is there to cover the broad scope of issues we identified in our legal scoping documents, and they will brought in only when necessary.

As for budget, we are going to work with counsel to be as cost-effective as possible, while meeting the needs of the CWG (and indirectly, the whole process of which we are a part).

Greg

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Great! The profile of the firms makes me  understand what Greg meant by "top notch" ;-)
On a lighter note, this feels[1] like using a trailer to carry 2 shovel of sand. You can be sure that the trailer will consume diesel but at least will deliver, and so long as the fuel station is willing to supply...Why not :-)

Whether it will be fast in delivery is another thing that I believe the client committee will ensure.

That said, @Greg, any idea of budget?

Cheers!
1. Don't mind a technical less cosmetic me ;-)
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 6 Mar 2015 20:57, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,

As promised, I have attached the introductory materials provided to the Client Committee by the three "finalist" law firms:

  • Gibson Dunn
  • Latham & Watkins
  • Sidley Austin
Best regards,

Greg Shatan

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship