text: persontomake acertain determination didnotextendtothedetermination ofthe~ rulesoflawapplicable tothesubstance ofthedispute, asreferred toin article 28(1).TheCommission postponed consideration ofthesuggestion untilthe discussion ofarticle 28. 40.Inaccordance withtheviewoftheCommission expressed duringthesubsequent discussion onarticle 28thatthemodellawshouldnotdealwiththepossibility thatparties mightauthorize athirdpersontodetermine rulesoflawapplicable to thesubstance ofthedispute (seebelow,para.242),theCommission decided to mOdify subparagraph (c)alongthefollowing lines: 11(c)whereaprovision ofthis Law,exceptarticle 28,leavestheparties freetodetermine acertain issue,such freedom includes therightoftheparties toauthorize athirdparty, including an institution, tomakethatdetermination". Subparagraph (e) 41.Inrespect ofsubparagraph (e),several suggestions weremadeforadding certain procedural rules,inparticular asregards thecasewheretheaddressee's -10-placeofbusiness, habitual residence ormailing address wasnottobefound. One suggestion, whichtheCommission adopted, wastoclarify thatinsuchcasethe mailing byregistered lettersufficed. TheCommission didnotaccept asuggestion tolaydowncertain criteria fordetermining whatconstituted areasonable inquiry. Another submission, withwhichtheCommission agreed, wasthatthe. expression "last-known" referred totheknowledge ofthesender. 42.Inordertoreducetheriskthattheprovision mightoperate tothedetriment ofapartywho was Unaware ofanyproceedings against him,itwassuggested that somesortofadvertising should berequired, acertain periodoftimeshould be established forthefictitious receipt tobecomeeffective orthatsomepossibility fortherespondent toresorttoacourtshould beenvisaged. Another suggestion wasnottoretaintheprovision andtorelysolely ontherequirements and safeguards oftheapplicable procedural law.Yetanother suggestion wasthat theprovision, sinceitwentclearly beyond ameredefinition orruleof interpretation, should beplacedinaseparate article ofthemodellaw. 43.TheCommission, afterdeliberation, wasagreedthattheprovision shouldnot setforthexcessively detailed procedural requirements whichcouldprovetobean obstacle toincorporating themodellawinnational legalsystems. TheCommission entrusted anadhocworking party, composed oftherepresentatives of Czechoslovakia, IraqandMexico, toprepare amodified version oftheprovision in thelightoftheabovediscussion. 44.The ad hocworking partysuggested placing theprovision ina newarticle 3in thefollowing modified form: "(1)Unlessotherwise agreed bytheparties, anywritte.n communication is deemedtohavebeenreceived ifitisdelivered totheaddressee personally or ifitisdelivered athisplaceofbusiness, habitual residence ormailing address; ifnoneofthesecanbefoundaftermakingreasonable inquiry, a written communication isdeemedtohavebeenreceivedifitissenttothe addressee's last-known placeofbusiness, habitual residence ormailing address byregistered letteroranyothermeanswhichprovides arecordofthe attempt todeliverit. "(2)Thecommunication isdeemedtohavebeenreceived onthedayitisso__ delivered." 45.TheCommission adopted thesuggested provlslon asnewarticle 3.Itwasnoted thatthereasonforplacing theprovision inaseparate article wasthatit contained aruleofProcedure andneither adefinition noraruleof interpretation. Itwasalsonotedthatthereasonforplacing thelastsentence in aseparate paragraph wastomakeclearthatthesentence referred totheentire provision. Astotheunderstanding oftheCommission thatnewarticle 3 onreceipt ofcommunications didnotapplytocourtproceedings ormeasures butonlytothe arbitral proceedings proper, seebelow,paragraph 106. Suggestions foradditional definitions 46.TheCommission adopted theproposal toexpress inarticle 2,possibly before thedefinition of"arbitral tribunal" insubparagraph (a),thattheterm "arbitration" meantanyarbitration whether ornotadministered by apermanent arbitral institution. -11-47.TheCommission didnotaccept aproposal tomovethedefinition of "arbitration agreement", setforthinarticle 7(1),toarticle 2.
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the development of a model law, specifically rules related to arbitration and communication in arbitration proceedings. The language used is technical and focused on legal procedures, indicating that the text is likely related to international trade or commerce. The discussion of specific articles and provisions in the model law also suggests that the text is focused on legal frameworks rather than broader economic or social issues.