I haven't read his testimony. I've read some of the others.
No, I haven't changed my opinion on the custodial management as it was described in 2002-03. It was risky then, the primary risk being that we'd lose all management options beyond 200 miles and we'd be up against some very powerful interests. Countries like the United States are not fond of that kind of extension of jurisdiction. There was no international consensus behind it--there just wasn't.
The second point I would make is that it's riskier now than it was then, because when I wrote that paper, we hadn't ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. We ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea and we are now subject to a compulsory dispute settlement, which means that we don't have the option we had with the Estai incident of reserving our jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice, for example. We'd be subject to mandatory procedures under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and we would lose that. So I think it's riskier now than it was then.