Certainly we've been on a trend since before the conference, actually, in trying to revitalize and reform regional fisheries management organizations. The reason, in the historical big-picture perspective, was that the choice had really come down to the same debates we'd had over extending beyond three or twelve miles way back becoming the debates we were having at the limits of 200 miles. I think fishing nations realized that continuing on a completely unregulated path would lead to more aggressive actions by coastal states. On the other hand, coastal states didn't really have a widespread consensus on going that much further for jurisdiction beyond.
What we settled on, in the big picture, as an implementing agreement out of the Law of the Sea Treaty of 1982 was the UN fish stocks agreement of the 1990s. The UN fish stocks agreement provides the overall architecture of the international system and it relies on regional fisheries management organizations at the implementation level for stocks beyond 200 miles and straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks.
What I see as the most productive parts of these amendments are those that try to advance the agenda from the UN fish stocks agreement. I think that's really the broad sweep of it, going right back to our actions in the mid-1990s, potentially.