CONSULTATION AND DECISION-MAKING Sample Clauses

CONSULTATION AND DECISION-MAKING. The project leader and the research leader will consult regularly with the IMEC program manager in order to observe the correct performance of the ICON project. 5.1. Project leader, Research leader, Work Package leader and IMEC Innovation Manager
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
CONSULTATION AND DECISION-MAKING. 7.1. The overall context for dialogue between RGC and all Health Partners is through the regular Technical Working Group-Health (TWG-H) Meetings. 7.2. For purposes of the Program and to ensure proper planning, coordination and implementation of the Program, MOH will convene JQMs to facilitate exchange of information and dialogue among Program Partners and RGC on all matters related to the Program. 7.3. JQMs will be convened quarterly (in May, August, November, February), after the quarterly IFR become available. 7.4. The JQM will be chaired by Program Director and will include key representatives of MOH and Program Partners. XXX will be responsible for preparation of the agenda. Program Partners may make proposals for items to be included on the agenda and, whenever necessary, call for an interim meeting. 7.5. The JQM will review semi-annual PMRs, quarterly IFRs, progress reports, audits and mission findings, endorse AOP requests for funds, review funding release triggers, monitor disbursements and make recommendations on release of Program funds. 7.6. The Program Secretariat, whose terms of reference have to be developed, will be responsible for the submission of reports required for the JQM. The reports will be submitted at least two weeks prior to the planned date of the JQM. 7.7. The results of each meeting will be recorded in agreed minutes. The agreed minutes will be drafted by XXX, and a copy of the draft transmitted to all Program Partners for their comments within 2 weeks of the meeting. Program Partners will convey their comments to MOH within 5 days of receipt of the draft. 7.8. Additional consultation meetings may be requested by XXX and/or [a] Program Partner[s] on any subject relevant to the implementation of the Program or HSP2. 7.9. Program Partners commit themselves to cooperate in developing, to the extent possible, a consensus on all relevant Program issues. They will make a particular effort to achieve common positions for the JQM, TWG-H meetings and annual policy dialogue (e.g. XXXX, adaptation of HSP2, etc.) through the JPIG. Program Partners will have equal rights and responsibilities in the JPIG and decision making will be consensus based. Any difference will be addressed through consultations among the Signatories and, if needed, the organization of a high-level meeting to promptly assess the situation and agree on a way forward. 7.10. The JPIG Chair will lead the JPIG with support from the Program Communications Facilitator. For p...
CONSULTATION AND DECISION-MAKING. The project leader and the research leader will consult regularly with the IMEC program manager in order to observe the correct performance of the ICON project. 5.1. Project leader, research leader, Work Package leader and IMEC program manager 5.1.1. Project leader “name project leader” (name Party) will be appointed as the project leader. The project leader shall only be responsible for the following activities: - the co-ordination of the activities of the ICON project, such as the co-ordination between Work Packages; - the verification of the observance of each Party of its obligations as detailed in the Agreement; - the administrative management of the ICON project; - the preparation of six monthly status reports, using the template provided by IMEC (Exhibit 4 to the Agreement) and the delivery of such report to the Parties; - the preparation and dissemination of documents required within the context of the project steering committee’s operations (e.g. agenda and minutes); - acting as the contact person between the Parties whereby the project leader, among others, is responsible for the transmission of correspondence between the Parties and with third parties and for the exchange of information between the Parties and/or third parties; - acting as the intermediary between the Parties in order to ensure efficient and accurate communications regarding the progress of the ICON project. The project leader is not entitled to act or to make legally binding declarations or commitments on behalf of any other Party(ies). If the project leader is no longer able to fulfil his responsibilities as a project leader, he/she can appoint another person to take over these responsibilities. In this case, he/she shall notify the other Parties in writing prior to this transfer.

Related to CONSULTATION AND DECISION-MAKING

  • Consultation and Dispute Resolution 1. The Parties shall promptly consult, at the request of either of them, on any question arising out of the interpretation or application of this Agreement. Any disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this agreement shall be settled by friendly consultations between the Parties. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the Parties from having recourse to dispute settlement procedures under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, and Ukraine.

  • Decision Making The Joint Development Committee and Joint Commercialization Committee shall each act by unanimous agreement of its members, with each Party having one vote. If the Joint Development Committee or Joint Commercialization Committee, after [* * *] (or such other period as the Parties may otherwise agree) of good faith efforts to reach a unanimous decision on an issue, fails to reach such a unanimous decision, then either Party may refer such issue to the Executive Officers. Such Executive Officers shall meet promptly thereafter and shall negotiate in good faith to resolve the issues. If Executive Officers cannot resolve such issue within [* * *] of referral of such issue to the Executive Officers, the resolution of such issue shall be as follows: (a) if such issue properly originated at the Joint Development Committee, determined by the Developing Party of the relevant Licensed Compound or Licensed Product at issue; provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing: (i) if Acceleron is the Developing Party and such issue relates to (x) the approval of an Additional Development Disease, or (y) matters under Section 5.6.3(d), then such issue shall be determined by [* * *]; (ii) regardless of which Party is the Developing Party, such issue shall be determined by [* * *] following the earliest of: (x) [* * *], and (y) the Joint Development Committee’s decision to go forward with a Phase 3 Clinical Trial of the relevant Licensed Compound or Licensed Product; provided that [* * *] shall continue to determine any issues that relate to the budget for and the conduct of the [* * *]; and (iii) regardless of which Party is the Developing Party, such issue shall be determined by [* * *] following the earliest of: (x) [* * *], and (y) the occurrence of any [* * *]; and (b) if such issue properly originated at the Joint Commercialization Committee, determined by Celgene. Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of Acceleron, Celgene, the Joint Development Committee or the Joint Commercialization Committee may make any decision inconsistent with the express terms of this Agreement without the prior written consent of each Party.

  • Initial Decision Maker The Architect will serve as the Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Article 15 of AIA Document A201–2017, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as the Initial Decision Maker.

  • Consultation Procedure If a party hereto is unable to meet the provisions of the Service Level Agreement, or in the event that a dispute arises relating to performance goals set forth in the Service Level Agreement, either party to this Agreement shall address any concerns it may have by requiring a consultation with the other party.

  • Negotiation; Alternative Dispute Resolution The Parties will attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to the performance of services under this Agreement. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute, then, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 21.36, Contractor may submit to the Contracting Officer a written request for administrative review and documentation of the Contractor's claim(s). Upon such request, the Contracting Officer shall promptly issue an administrative decision in writing, stating the reasons for the action taken and informing the Contractor of its right to judicial review. If agreed by both Parties in writing, disputes may be resolved by a mutually agreed-upon alternative dispute resolution process. If the parties do not mutually agree to an alternative dispute resolution process or such efforts do not resolve the dispute, then either Party may pursue any remedy available under California law. The status of any dispute or controversy notwithstanding, Contractor shall proceed diligently with the performance of its obligations under this Agreement in accordance with the Agreement and the written directions of the City. Neither Party will be entitled to legal fees or costs for matters resolved under this section.

  • Final Decision Concessionaire covenants that the decision of the Commissioner of Department, relative to the performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall be final and conclusive.

  • Independent Decision The Investor is not relying on the Issuer or on any legal or other opinion in the materials reviewed by the Investor with respect to the financial or tax considerations of the Investor relating to its investment in the Shares. The Investor has relied solely on the representations and warranties, covenants and agreements of the Issuer in this Agreement (including the exhibits and schedules hereto) and on its examination and independent investigation in making its decision to acquire the Shares.

  • Arbitration Decisions Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the arbitrator(s) shall render a decision within ninety (90) Calendar Days of appointment and shall notify the Parties in writing of such decision and the reasons therefor. The arbitrator(s) shall be authorized only to interpret and apply the provisions of this LGIA and shall have no power to modify or change any provision of this Agreement in any manner. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Parties, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrator(s) may be appealed solely on the grounds that the conduct of the arbitrator(s), or the decision itself, violated the standards set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act or the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The final decision of the arbitrator(s) must also be filed with FERC if it affects jurisdictional rates, terms and conditions of service, Interconnection Facilities, or Network Upgrades.

  • Selection and Payment of Appeal Panel In the event an Appellant delivers an Appeal Notice to the Appellee (together with proof of payment of the applicable bond) in compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 5.1 above, the Appeal will be heard by a three (3) person arbitration panel (the “Appeal Panel”). (a) Within ten (10) calendar days after the Appeal Date, the Appellee shall select and submit to the Appellant the names of five (5) arbitrators that are designated as “neutrals” or qualified arbitrators by Utah ADR Services (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx) (such five (5) designated persons hereunder are referred to herein as the “Proposed Appeal Arbitrators”). For the avoidance of doubt, each Proposed Appeal Arbitrator must be qualified as a “neutral” with Utah ADR Services, and shall not be the arbitrator who rendered the Arbitration Award being appealed (the “Original Arbitrator”). Within five (5) calendar days after the Appellee has submitted to the Appellant the names of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators, the Appellant must select, by written notice to the Appellee, three (3) of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators to act as the members of the Appeal Panel. If the Appellant fails to select three (3) of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators in writing within such 5-day period, then the Appellee may select such three (3) arbitrators from the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators by providing written notice of such selection to the Appellant. (b) If the Appellee fails to submit to the Appellant the names of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators within ten (10) calendar days after the Appeal Date pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, then the Appellant may at any time prior to the Appellee so designating the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators, identify the names of five (5) arbitrators that are designated as “neutrals” or qualified arbitrators by Utah ADR Service (none of whom may be the Original Arbitrator) by written notice to the Appellee. The Appellee may then, within five (5) calendar days after the Appellant has submitted notice of its selected arbitrators to the Appellee, select, by written notice to the Appellant, three (3) of such selected arbitrators to serve on the Appeal Panel. If the Appellee fails to select in writing within such 5-day period three (3) of the arbitrators selected by the Appellant to serve as the members of the Appeal Panel, then the Appellant may select the three (3) members of the Appeal Panel from the Appellant’s list of five (5) arbitrators by providing written notice of such selection to the Appellee. (c) If a selected Proposed Appeal Arbitrator declines or is otherwise unable to serve, then the party that selected such Proposed Appeal Arbitrator may select one (1) of the other five (5) designated Proposed Appeal Arbitrators within three (3) calendar days of the date a chosen Proposed Appeal Arbitrator declines or notifies the parties he or she is unable to serve as an arbitrator. If at least three (3) of the five (5) designated Proposed Appeal Arbitrators decline or are otherwise unable to serve, then the Proposed Appeal Arbitrator selection process shall begin again in accordance with this Paragraph 5.2; provided, however, that any Proposed Appeal Arbitrators who have already agreed to serve shall remain on the Appeal Panel. (d) The date that all three (3) Proposed Appeal Arbitrators selected pursuant to this Paragraph 5.2 agree in writing (including via email) delivered to both the Appellant and the Appellee to serve as members of the Appeal Panel hereunder is referred to herein as the “Appeal Commencement Date”. No later than five (5) calendar days after the Appeal Commencement Date, the Appellee shall designate in writing (including via email) to the Appellant and the Appeal Panel the name of one (1) of the three (3) members of the Appeal Panel to serve as the lead arbitrator in the Appeal proceedings. Each member of the Appeal Panel shall be deemed an arbitrator for purposes of these Arbitration Provisions and the Arbitration Act, provided that, in conducting the Appeal, the Appeal Panel may only act or make determinations upon the approval or vote of no less than the majority vote of its members, as announced or communicated by the lead arbitrator on the Appeal Panel. If an arbitrator on the Appeal Panel ceases or is unable to act during the Appeal proceedings, a replacement arbitrator shall be chosen in accordance with Paragraph 5.2 above to continue the Appeal as a member of the Appeal Panel. If Utah ADR Services ceases to exist or to provide a list of neutrals, then the arbitrators for the Appeal Panel shall be selected under the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association.

  • Arbitration Decision The arbitrator’s decision will be final and binding. The arbitrator shall issue a written arbitration decision revealing the essential findings and conclusions upon which the decision and/or award is based. A party’s right to appeal the decision is limited to grounds provided under applicable federal or state law.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!