These basically have been longstanding requests that have not been agreed to by contracting parties, longstanding grievances. In this particularly delicate year, we'll call it, of ratification, or period of ratification, if any of these requests were suddenly agreed to by Canada, for example, or supported by Canada, it would create that linkage towards ratification, but that's a subjective opinion and we'll leave it be for now.
What I want to zero in, to you both, is the whole notion of this NAFO control inside of 200 miles. The provisions of the revised convention do actually allow NAFO, at the direct intervention or request of the coastal state, to manage inside of the exclusive economic zone of the contracting party, the coastal state.
We noted at the committee level that there was no such reciprocal or comparable agreement for Canadian control outside of 200 miles. I called it a quid pro quo. I expressed the belief that it would be a natural flow or extension that if you're going to accede to the possibility of NAFO foreign control or majority foreign control inside of 200 miles, then it just seems naturally flowing that you'd also negotiate the possibility of the coastal state, Canada in particular, having control outside of 200 miles.
From your own points of view as commissioners but as well as long-time participants in the industry, how's that going over?