EU-U Sample Clauses

EU-U. S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks Aproove Affiliates comply with the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks ("Privacy Shield"). Where the transfer of Client Personal Data is made to a Privacy Shield-certified entity, we agree to process Client Personal Data covered by Privacy Shield in accordance with the Privacy Shield Principles. We agree to comply with Privacy Shield throughout the term of the Services Agreement.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
EU-U. S. Privacy Shield. MaestroQA, Inc. participates in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework. For more information, please see XxxxxxxXX's EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Statement, [hyperlink to the section of privacy policy with privacy shield statement].
Sample 1
EU-U. S. Data Privacy Framework, UK Extension, Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. Respondus will provide at least the same level of protection for the Licensee Data as is required under the EU-U.S Data Privacy Framework, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF and the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, and shall promptly notify Licensee if it makes a determination that it can no longer provide this level of protection. In such event, or if Licensee otherwise reasonably believes that Respondus is not protecting the Licensee Data as required under the EU-U.S Data Privacy Framework, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF and the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, Licensee may either: (a) instruct Respondus to take reasonable and appropriate steps to stop and remediate any unauthorized processing, in which event Respondus shall promptly cooperate with Licensee in good faith to identify, agree and implement such steps; or (b) terminate this DPA and the Agreement without penalty by giving notice to Respondus.
Sample 1

Related to EU-U

  • Non-U S. Person...............................................................................33

  • Xxxxxx and X Xxxxxxxxx. Key-agreement in ad-hoc networks. In Nordsec’99, 1999. [4] X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, and X. Xxxxxx. Authenticated Group Key Agreement and Friends. In 5th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 17–26. ACM, November 1998. [5] X. Xxxxxx and X. Xxxxx. Communication complexity of group key distribution. In 5th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, November 1998. [6] X. Xxxxxxx and X. Xxxxxxx. Random oracles are practical: A paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 1993. [7] Xxx Xxxxx. The Decision Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx problem. In Third Algorithmic Number Theory Symposium, number 1423 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 48–63. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Germany, 1998. [8] Xxx Xxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx. Applications of multilinear forms to cryptography. To appear in Contemporary Mathematics, American Mathematical Society. [9] Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, and Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx. Provably authenticated group Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx key exchange — the dynamic case. In Xxxxx Xxxx, editor, Advances in Cryptology – ASIACRYPT ’2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Gold Coast, Australia, 2001. International Association for Cryptologic Research, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Germany. [10] Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, and Xxxx-Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx. Provably authenticated group xxxxxx-xxxxxxx key exchange. In Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, editor, 8th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Philadelphia, PA, USA, November 2001. ACM Press. [11] Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx and Xxx Xxxxxxx. A secure and efficient conference key distribution system. In X. Xx Xxxxxx, editor, Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT ’94, number 950 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. International Association for Cryptologic Research, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Germany, 1995. final version of proceedings. [12] X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxx, X. Xxxxxx, and X. Xxxxxxxx. The VersaKey framework: Versatile group key management. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 17(9), September 1999. [13] Xxxxx Xxxxx. Zero-knowledge undeniable signatures. In X.X. Xxxxxxx, editor, Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT ’90, number 473 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 458–464. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Germany, May 1991.

  • Board of Governors (hereinafter called the Board) is the body referred to by that name in the Carleton University Act.

  • Xxxxx and X Xxxxxxxxxx. Non-Commutative Geometry, Non- Associative Geometry and the Standard Model of Particle Physics, 1401.5083.

  • Xxxx and X Xxxx: Scalable protocols for authenticated group key exchange, in: Advances in Cryp- tology – Crypto’03, LNCS 2729, pp. 110–125, 2003.

  • Xxxxxxx and X Xxxx¨cker. A detailed account of Xxxxx Xxxxxx’ version of the standard model. IV. Rev. Math. Phys. 8 (1996) 205–228.

  • Xxxxxxxx and X X. Xxxxx. 1930. Checklist of the fishes and fishlike vertebrates of North and Middle America north of the northern boundary of Venezuela and Columbia. Rept. U.S. Fish Comm. 1928(2):1-670. Jordan, D.S. and X.X. Xxxxxxxx. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America. Part 1. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bul. 47:1-1240. Xxxxx, S. and X. Xxxxxx. 2005..Hydrogeologic setting of the snake valley hydrologic basin, Xxxxxxx County, Utah, and White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada – implications for possible effects of proposed water xxxxx. Report of investigation 254, Utah Geological Survey. Xxxxxxx, M.C. 1982. Status report of three Bonneville basin endemic fishes. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 27 pp. May, B. E. and X. X. Xxxxx. 1981. Comparative effects of sheep and cattle grazing on the Xxxxx Creek drainage. Transactions of the Bonneville Chapter American Fisheries Society. 1981:48-62. Xxxxx, X.X. 1985. Predation and species replacement in American Southwestern fishes: a case study. Southwestern Naturalist. 30:173-187. Xxxxxx, X. X. and X. X. Xxxxxx. 1985. Two New Intergeneric Cyprinid Hybrids from the Bonneville Basin, Utah. Copeia, 1985(2):509-515. Xxxxxx, X.X. 1972. Threatened freshwater fishes of the United States. Trans. Amer, Fish. Soc. 101(2):239-252.

  • Xxxxxxxxx and X Xxxxxxx. A

  • APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNORS 50. The Members may appoint up to 1 Governor save that no more than one third of the total number of individuals appointed as Governors shall be employees of the Academy Trust (including the Principal).

  • The U S. Borrower from time to time agrees to pay (i) to each Lender (other than any Defaulting Lender), through the Administrative Agent, three Business Days after the last day of March, June, September and December of each year and three Business Days after the date on which the Commitments of all the Lenders shall be terminated as provided herein, a fee (an “L/C Participation Fee”) on such Lender’s Revolving Facility Percentage of the daily aggregate Revolving L/C Exposure (excluding the portion thereof attributable to unreimbursed L/C Disbursements), during the preceding quarter (or shorter period ending with the applicable Maturity Date or the date on which the Revolving Facility Commitments shall be terminated) at the rate per annum equal to the Applicable Margin for Eurocurrency Revolving Borrowings effective for each day in such period and (ii) to each Issuing Bank, for its own account, (x) three Business Days after the last day of March, June, September and December of each year and three Business Days after the date on which the Revolving Facility Commitments of all the Lenders shall be terminated as provided herein, a fronting fee in respect of each Letter of Credit issued by such Issuing Bank for the period from and including the date of issuance of such Letter of Credit to and including the termination of such Letter of Credit, computed at a rate equal to the U.S. Dollar Equivalent of 0.125% per annum of the daily average stated amount of such Letter of Credit (or as otherwise agreed with such Issuing Bank), plus (y) in connection with the issuance, amendment or transfer of any such Letter of Credit or any L/C Disbursement thereunder, such Issuing Bank’s customary documentary and processing fees and charges (collectively, “Issuing Bank Fees”). All L/C Participation Fees and Issuing Bank Fees are payable in U.S. Dollars and shall be computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed in a year of 360 days.

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