Decisions of the Collaboration Board Sample Clauses

Decisions of the Collaboration Board. The Collaboration Board shall have its quorum to take decisions with the participation of two thirds of the voting members excluding the clause for IAC, independent of the meeting style, face to face, telephone/video meeting or vote by e-mail. Each member of the Collaboration Board has one vote. Decisions shall be made by agreement of at least two thirds of members specified in the list of the Collaboration Board1. Important decisions shall be announced 2 weeks before the Collaboration Board meeting by the Chair of the Collaboration Board, and the representatives of institutions can vote on those issues by e-mail or by proxy, in case he/she will not attend the meeting. In principle, discussions shall be continued until reaching an agreement. In case of dissension the following emergency/crisis procedure shall apply: The decision making procedure in emergency / crisis cases: Notwithstanding the requirement of agreement more than two thirds this procedure shall be used only in the exceptional case of an emergency or crisis situation in the Collaboration Board or in the entire MAGIC collaboration if consensus is not reached at all. In this case each member institution of the MAGIC collaboration has one vote whereas the decision shall be taken by a single majority of votes. The votes shall be weighted according to the investment share in the MAGIC-II and MAGIC-I constructions as laid down in Annex 5 and 6 hereto, the cumulative common fund contributions of all past years and the cumulative investment of manpower (cumulative FTE*averaged annual salary of scientists in the EU).
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Decisions of the Collaboration Board

  • Decisions of the Board The decision of the majority shall be the decision of the Board. Where there is no majority decision, the decision of the Chairperson shall be the decision of the Board. The decision of the Board of Arbitration shall be final and binding and enforceable on all parties, but in no event shall the Board of Arbitration have the power to change this Agreement or to alter, modify or amend any of its provisions. However, the Board shall have the power to dispose of any discharge or a discipline grievance by any arrangement which in its opinion it deems just and equitable.

  • Procedures of the Joint Committee 1. For the proper implementation of this Agreement, the Joint Committee shall meet at an appropriate level whenever necessary upon request but at least once a year. Either Party may request a meeting be held.

  • Functions of Arbitral Tribunals 1. The functions of the arbitral tribunal shall be: (a) to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including that of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with this Agreement, and make the necessary findings and rulings for the resolution of the dispute; and (b) to consult regularly with the Parties offering them equal opportunities for such consultations and provide adequate opportunities for the development of a mutually satisfactory resolution. 2. The arbitral tribunal may adopt additional rules and procedures consistent with the provisions of this Chapter.

  • IMPLICATIONS OF THE LISTING RULES As one or more of the applicable percentage ratios (as defined in the Listing Rules) of the transactions under the Finance Lease Agreement are more than 5% but less than 25%, the transactions under the Finance Lease Agreement constitute discloseable transactions of the Company under Chapter 14 of the Listing Rules, and are subject to the announcement and reporting requirements under the Listing Rules.

  • Determinations and Actions by the Board of Directors All actions, calculations and determinations (including all omissions with respect to the foregoing) which are done or made by the Board of Directors in good faith pursuant to this Agreement, shall not subject the Board of Directors to any liability to the holders of the Rights.

  • Determinations of Director Pursuant to the Act and Section II of the Agreement and subject to the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement and all Appendices thereto, the Director hereby determines that the financial assistance to be provided by the OPWC to the Recipient is in compliance with the Act and is provided to the Recipient for the sole and express purpose of financing the Eligible Project Cost and/or reimbursing the Recipient for such Eligible Project Cost.

  • Composition of the Committee The Committee will comprise: - one (1) retiree appointed by OPSEU CAAT Academic - one (1) retiree appointed by OPSEU CAAT Support - one (1) retiree appointed by the Ontario Colleges Administrative Staff Association (OCASA) - three (3) management representatives appointed by the Council - one (1) resource person appointed by OPSEU - one (1) resource person appointed by OCASA - one (1) resource person appointed by the Council Additionally, when necessary, representatives of insurance carriers shall attend meetings to provide information but shall not act as resource persons for any of the parties.

  • Decisions The General Assembly shall be free to act on its own initiative to formulate proposals and take decisions in accordance with the procedures set out herein. In addition, all proposals made by the Executive Board shall also be considered and decided upon by the General Assembly. The following decisions shall be taken by the General Assembly: Content, finances and intellectual property rights - Proposals for changes to Annexes 1 and 2 of the Grant Agreement to be agreed by the Funding Authority - Changes to the Consortium Plan - Modifications to Attachment 1 (Background Included) - Additions to Attachment 3 (List of Third Parties for simplified transfer according to Section 8.2.2) - Additions to Attachment 4 (Identified Affiliated Entities)] Evolution of the consortium - Entry of a new Party to the consortium and approval of the settlement on the conditions of the accession of such a new Party - Withdrawal of a Party from the consortium and the approval of the settlement on the conditions of the withdrawal - Identification of a breach by a Party of its obligations under this Consortium Agreement or the Grant Agreement - Declaration of a Party to be a Defaulting Party The identification of the breach is a first step in accordance with the procedure in 4.2 before declaring a Party as a Defaulting Party. - Remedies to be performed by a Defaulting Party - Termination of a Defaulting Party’s participation in the consortium and measures relating thereto - Proposal to the Funding Authority for a change of the Coordinator - Proposal to the Funding Authority for suspension of all or part of the Project - Proposal to the Funding Authority for termination of the Project and the Consortium Agreement Appointments On the basis of the Grant Agreement, the appointment if necessary of: - Executive Board Members

  • Duties of the Committee The Committee will be responsible for developing recommendations based on consensus (agreement and/or abstinence constitutes consensus) for the CAAT retirees' group insurance plans. The duties of the Committee are to:

  • 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.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.