I'll respond.
I may also pick up on the earlier reference to consensus as well. Certainly that is one of the issues we're very concerned about, because the rules of procedure are calling for a treaty agreed by consensus. There's great concern that what we will end up with as a result of consensus is a lowest common denominator document that will effectively be meaningless.
If we move towards that end, I think that's when we would say it would be best not to have a treaty than a weak document that would in fact put in place standards that would be much lower than those of many states, such as Canada, and would justify a lot of states continuing with their current operations around transfers.
I hope I've responded to your question.