Developing the Recommendations for the European. Consensus Conference and Reaching a Final Agreement
Developing the Recommendations for the European Sample Clauses
Related to Developing the Recommendations for the European
Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.
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.
Audit of Existing Content and Functionality By May 1, 2017, the District will propose for OCR’s review and approval the identity and bona fides of an Auditor (corporation or individual) to audit all content and functionality on its website, including, but not limited to, the home page, all subordinate pages, and intranet pages and sites, to identify any online content or functionality that is inaccessible to persons with disabilities, including online content and functionality developed by, maintained by, or offered through a third party vendor or an open source. The Auditor will have sufficient knowledge and experience in website accessibility for people with disabilities to carry out all related tasks, including developing a Proposed Corrective Action Plan. The Audit will use the Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility set out above, unless the District receives prior permission from OCR to use a different standard as a benchmark. During the Audit, the District will also seek input from members of the public with disabilities, including parents, students, employees, and others associated with the District, and other persons knowledgeable about website accessibility, regarding the accessibility of its online content and functionality.
Necessity for Written Approvals All approvals and decisions of the Regional Water Board under the terms of this Stipulated Order shall be communicated to the Settling Respondent in writing. No oral advice, guidance, suggestions, or comments from Regional Water Board employees or officials regarding submissions or notices shall be construed to relieve the Settling Respondent of its obligation to obtain any final written approval this Stipulated Order requires.
Information Submission by Connecting Transmission Owner The initial information submission by Connecting Transmission Owner shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to Trial Operation and shall include New York State Transmission System information necessary to allow the Developer to select equipment and meet any system protection and stability requirements, unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the Developer and Connecting Transmission Owner. On a monthly basis Connecting Transmission Owner shall provide Developer and NYISO a status report on the construction and installation of Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities and System Upgrade Facilities and System Deliverability Upgrades, including, but not limited to, the following information: (1) progress to date; (2) a description of the activities since the last report; (3) a description of the action items for the next period; and (4) the delivery status of equipment ordered.
We provide Message Boards for the use of Our Website users The Message Boards may not be used to promote Websites or any commercial or business activity. We are not responsible for any of the opinions expressed in the Message Boards. By posting a message to the message board You agree to take full legal responsibility and liability for your comments, including for offensive or defamatory statements. Feedback: Feedback is provided for the purpose of facilitating trading by You on Our Website. Feedback provided on other parties must not contain offensive, defamatory, retaliatory or inappropriate language or content. We may remove any feedback that is considered to be offensive, defamatory, retaliatory or inappropriate. You may only give feedback that relates to a specific transaction. You must not post feedback on a transaction that does not relate to that specific transaction. You must not post feedback about Yourself or include any contact details or Personal Information in Your feedback.
APPROVAL OF GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS Competitive Supplier may only communicate with Program participants and/or use the lists of Eligible Consumers/Program participants to send Department-approved education materials, opt- out notices, or other communications essential to the operation of the Program. Such lists may not be used by Competitive Supplier to market any additional products or services to Eligible Consumers or Program Participants. Competitive Supplier shall cooperate with and assist the Town in the drafting and sending of messages and information to Eligible Consumers concerning the Program or any matter arising under or related to this Agreement or the Program. Competitive Supplier shall, prior to sending any direct mail, advertising, solicitation, bill insert, electronic mail, or other similar written or electronic communication (collectively, “General Communications”) to Participating Consumers (but excluding individually drafted or tailored communications responding to a specific complaint or communication of an individual consumer), provide a copy of such General Communication to the Town for its review (for consistency with the Town’s purposes and goals) and approval. The Town shall have the right to disapprove such General Communications and suggest revisions if it finds the communication inconsistent with the purposes and goals of the Town, factually inaccurate, not essential to the operation of the program, or likely to mislead provided, however, that: (i) the communication shall be deemed approved if the Town fails to respond within ten (10) Business Days, and (ii) no approval shall be necessary for any communication (a) regarding any emergency situation involving any risk to the public health, safety or welfare; (b) that has been approved by the Department, the DOER; or (c) in the nature of routine monthly or periodic bills, or collection notices, except that any bill insert or message included at the bottom of such bill not within the scope of (a) or (b) above shall require advanced review and approval by the Town; and (iii) no approval or lack of approval shall relieve the Competitive Supplier of its obligations and responsibility for its actions and omissions under this Agreement, or other than as set forth in sub-clause ‘i’ of this Section 7.6, result in a waiver of any rights, remedies or defenses of the Town. The Town may reject or exclude any proposed General Communication that, in its reasonable judgment, is contrary to the interests and objectives of the Program or the Town.
Contractors Submission Respecting the Agreement The Contractor shall, as part of the Contractor's submission respecting this Contract, complete the attached Schedule B, Identification of Principles; Schedule C, Schedule of Tendered Unit Prices; Schedule D, Schedule of Equipment to be used on the work; and Schedule E, Schedule of Sub-Contractors. The Contract including all appended schedules shall be completed in complete conformity with the instructions to bidders contained in the document entitled "General Provisions and Contract Specification for Highway Construction". In presenting the Contractor’s submission for consideration by the Minister, the Contractor understands that until, and unless, the Contract is endorsed by the Minister, no Contract between the parties shall exist and the Minister shall not be bound to endorse any Contract.
