I have little insight into what Iceland or the Faroe Islands will do or what they think. It's important to note that Iceland and the Faroe Islands are both very forward-thinking nations in managing their domestic fisheries. They've been strong proponents of cutting the exploitation rate and managing sustainably, unlike some other European nations, like Spain or France, for example. From that perspective, I think they may provide good and valuable input into the process.
I have to say I'm wary of the NAFO amendments, just from the perspective that the 200-mile limit has been instrumental in helping Canada and other nations get a handle on their fisheries to start with. If they wanted to, they could limit exploitation rates within their territorial waters. Without the 200-mile limit or with the weakened 200-mile limit, I think some of the tools we have developed would become impractical or much more difficult to enforce, as we see on the high seas. The problems on the high seas are endemic. I think a lot of people feel it's very difficult to do something constructive there because of that multi-stakeholder problem.