With or without linkage. Certainly the United States clearly has been continuously looking for something so they can go home and say we got something out of NAFO. There are a couple of parties who from time to time will pop up and say “What about us”, but don't really seem to press the point much beyond that, Korea being an example.
The other outstanding objection that's been filed for a number of years under the objection provision is by Iceland with respect to shrimp on the Flemish Cap, where it's managed according to the number of days you're permitted to have a vessel on grounds, versus the normal way of doing it by quota. They're of the view--which I happen to agree with--that by quota is the more appropriate management measure. So they object on principle. They manage their fisheries by quotas, not by days on grounds.
Those are the only ones I can think of offhand that are currently outstanding. The Europeans and ourselves are probably the strongest advocates of the status quo on quota shares, for the obvious reason that we have the most to lose by any tinkering with current or traditional quota shares.