Thanks David. 
By "not a middle ground" I mean that it appears to ban all cross-ownership (that's an extreme, not a middle). 
Plus, it made a statement about how VI may raise consumer data protection issues but made no balancing comments about how banning it might prevent consumers from ever being able to see some new TLDs. 

By the way, the economists report dated 1/28/2010 and recently released to the public contains a really balanced and readable explanation of the issues. I think anyone participating in this debate should read it. I would attach it but can't find it now and am too tired to look. Will send it later. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Cake
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi
> 
> At 1:32 PM -0500 13/3/10, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >Wolfgang:
> >The VI resolution was not a middle ground.
> 
> 	The VI resolution was a sensible middle ground IF you believe
> that the board is genuinely waiting for the GNSO VI policy process,
> and is likely to accept its recommendations.. If you believe the
> board is paying lip service to the GNSO policy process, and intends
> to ultimately reject VI, then it is not.
> 	Regards
> 		David