Limitations on Re-Disclosure The Provider shall not re-disclose Student Data to any other party or affiliate without the express written permission of the LEA or pursuant to court order, unless such disclosure is otherwise permitted under SOPPA, ISSRA, FERPA, and MHDDCA. Provider will not sell or rent Student Data. In the event another party, including law enforcement or a government entity, contacts the Provider with a request or subpoena for Student Data in the possession of the Provider, the Provider shall redirect the other party to seek the data directly from the LEA. In the event the Provider is compelled to produce Student Data to another party in compliance with a court order, Provider shall notify the LEA at least five (5) school days in advance of the court ordered disclosure and, upon request, provide the LEA with a copy of the court order requiring such disclosure.
Submissions on Behalf of Others Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation, You may submit it to OIDF separately from any Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
Exceptions to Informal Negotiations and Arbitration The Parties agree that the following Disputes are not subject to the above provisions concerning informal negotiations and binding arbitration: (a) any Disputes seeking to enforce or protect, or concerning the validity of, any of the intellectual property rights of a Party; (b) any Dispute related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, invasion of privacy, or unauthorized use; and (c) any claim for injunctive relief. If this provision is found to be illegal or unenforceable, then neither Party will elect to arbitrate any Dispute falling within that portion of this provision found to be illegal or unenforceable and such Dispute shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the courts listed for jurisdiction above, and the Parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of that court. CORRECTIONS There may be information on the Site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions, including descriptions, pricing, availability, and various other information. We reserve the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions and to change or update the information on the Site at any time, without prior notice.
NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC EVENTS AND MEETINGS 2 A. CONTRACTOR shall notify ADMINISTRATOR of any public event or meeting funded in 3 whole or in part by the COUNTY, except for those events or meetings that are intended solely to serve 4 clients or occur in the normal course of business.
Terms and Conditions on Any Consent Any consent or approval that the LHIN may grant under this Agreement is subject to such terms and conditions as the LHIN may reasonably require.
WHO WILL REVIEW THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED ON THE RELATIONSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM AND ANY UPDATES? The information disclosed on this form and any updates will be a public record as defined by Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and may therefore be inspected by any interested person. Also, the information will be made available to the Mayor and the BCC members. This form and any updates will accompany the information for the applicant’s project or item. However, for development-related items, if an applicant discloses the existence of one or more of the relationships described above and the matter would normally receive final consideration by the Concurrency Review Committee or the Development Review Committee, the matter will be directed to the BCC for final consideration and action following committee review.
Agreements Relating to Sentencing 10. The government agrees to recommend that the Court impose a sentence of imprisonment within the applicable guidelines range and to make no further recommendation concerning what sentence of imprisonment should be imposed.
Referral to Arbitration: Provincial Matters a. If the grievance is not resolved at Step Three within ten (10) working days of the meeting referred to in Article A.6.4, the BCTF or BCPSEA where applicable may refer a “provincial matters grievance,” as defined in Appendix 1 and Addenda, to arbitration within a further fifteen (15) working days.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND RECITALS 12 1. The parties agree that the terms used, but not otherwise defined in the Common Terms and
