on further approaches to insolvency, and to collaborate with other organisations including the World Bank, the IMF and the International Bar Association, which have contributed to this area of law and practice. UNCITRAL can contribute expertise in text preparation and in overseeing the implementation of the text in a way that is integrated with regard to other international instruments that are of relevance, such as in the area of receivables Β’nancing. Another advantage is the truly global representation and potential participation in an UNCITRAL-sponsored project. The organisation also has an invaluable sense ^borne of long experience ^of what is politically acceptable on a broad international level, as well as being practically feasible in commercial terms. The lessons of the Model Law -Phase I project are important: the``menu''approach was rejected in favour of a standard slate of provisions. This could be followed in ML-II, or at any rate any freedom of choice could be restricted to a very small menu. Too much freedom of choice results in stultifying diversity, unevenness and uncertainty. The valuable precedent of holding a series of judicial colloquia should be repeated.
The second keynote address was delivered by Neil Cooper, President of INSOL International. He argued that there is a clear need for a Phase II Model Law, to help nations that require assistance in confronting the challenge of reform in step with today's globalised standards. The process needs to be a two-way one, with listening and dialogue an integral aspect of the approach. The guiding principle must be to practice the art of the possible'' . Goals must be suitably modest, and realistic: the grand design'' is an exercise in self-delusion.