But the U.S. ban on fishing applies to its 200 nautical mile economic zone, which it includes as part of our area. It is not specifically targeted at the overlapping claim. It is a generic one that applies to all of the 200-nautical-mile zone north of Alaska.
The protest notes are a legal way of just letting the other country know that we've noticed. While I don't have any first-hand knowledge, I assume that when we do things out there the U.S. sends us a protest note. It's just what happens.
On the second question, yes, there is a doughnut hole or however you wish to call it. One has to be careful here that one is referring to the water column, so we're talking beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean. There is a large area that would be described as high seas. This is the same thing that exists beyond Canada's 200-nautical-mile zones on the east coast. Beyond 200 nautical miles is the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the high seas, and there is that area in the Arctic Ocean.
One has to differentiate the 200 nautical mile zone from the continental shelf area. The continental shelf is not constrained as a legal matter by the 200-nautical-mile zone, so the continental shelf for Canada in the Arctic, while it is not yet clear where this will go, will undoubtedly go well beyond 200 nautical miles, much as it does on the Atlantic Coast, well beyond 200 nautical miles off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
So you have the situation in the Arctic, as you say, of a doughnut hole in the water column, but we don't know yet just exactly how much area may be left for the international seabed authority and the community on the sea floor.