NDI’s Preliminary Involvement Sample Clauses

NDI’s Preliminary Involvement with Guatemalan Monitoring Groups In late 2002, NDI received requests for assistance from Guatemalan civic organizations interested in conducting pre-election, election-day and post-election observation, as well as for political party pollwatcher training and voter education. In October and November, NDI invited members of Acción Ciudadana to take part in a study mission to Ecuador to witness the observation efforts of Participación Ciudadana – Ecuador (Citizen Participation – Ecuador). The visits were organized for the first and second rounds of the national elections. The trips were funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (XXX) as part of NDI’s program in support of the Acuerdo de Lima. Acción Ciudadana is member of this regional network of election observation groups. The trip provided Acción Ciudadana with insights into monitoring activities, including the strengths and weaknesses of different organizational models, the transmission of data on election-day and quick counts. In February 2003 with XXX funds, an NDI delegation traveled to Guatemala to assess the political situation leading up to the November general elections and to determine if the Institute could contribute to efforts to strengthen the electoral process. The NDI delegation was comprised of Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, Senior Advisor and leading expert on nonpartisan domestic election observation;1 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Director of Development and 1 Nonpartisan domestic election observation, which local groups undertake in an objective manner, stands in contrast to other important types of election observation, including international observation and political party pollwatching. Domestic election monitoring engages citizens, including those from underrepresented sectors and regions, in the electoral process. Volunteer monitors gain a glimpse into a new relationship between government and citizens that encourages political discourse and citizen involvement in the political process, as well as an understanding of the impact they can have on the political and electoral process. They also develop organizational skills useful for active and effective participation in the political life of their country. former Guatemala program manager; and Xxxxxx Mlade, Senior Program Officer for programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. The delegation held wide-ranging discussions with leaders of political parties and civic groups, presidential candidates, the election authorities, political analysts, and members of...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to NDI’s Preliminary Involvement

  • Joint Review JADRC may, at the request of either party, review issues arising from the application of this Article.

  • Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).

  • Negotiation Teams Neither party in any negotiations shall have any control over the selection of the bargaining representatives of the other party. The parties mutually pledge that their representatives will be clothed with all necessary authority and power to make proposals, counterproposals and to reach tentative agreement on items being negotiated. The parties realize the Agreement shall only be effective subject to the ratification of the BTU-ESP and the School Board. The Negotiation/Labor Management team shall consist of no more than six

  • Transition Review Period In accordance with Article 35, Layoff and Recall, the Employer may require an employee to complete a transition review period.

  • Agreement Review If, pursuant to section 25.10 (Review of Agreement) of the Bilateral Agreement, the Bilateral Agreement is reviewed after three or five years, or both, of the effective date of the Bilateral Agreement, and any changes to the Bilateral Agreement are required as a result, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as necessary and in a manner that is consistent with such changes.

  • Updated Information Submission by Interconnection Customer The updated information submission by the Interconnection Customer, including manufacturer information, shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to the Trial Operation. The Interconnection Customer shall submit a completed copy of the Electric Generating Unit data requirements contained in Appendix 1 to the LGIP. It shall also include any additional information provided to the Participating TO and the CAISO for the Interconnection Studies. Information in this submission shall be the most current Electric Generating Unit design or expected performance data. Information submitted for stability models shall be compatible with the Participating TO and CAISO standard models. If there is no compatible model, the Interconnection Customer will work with a consultant mutually agreed to by the Parties to develop and supply a standard model and associated information. If the Interconnection Customer's data is materially different from what was originally provided to the Participating TO and the CAISO for the Interconnection Studies, then the Participating TO and the CAISO will conduct appropriate studies pursuant to the LGIP to determine the impact on the Participating TO’s Transmission System and affected portions of the CAISO Controlled Grid based on the actual data submitted pursuant to this Article 24.3. The Interconnection Customer shall not begin Trial Operation until such studies are completed and all other requirements of this LGIA are satisfied.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Updated Information Submission by Developer The updated information submission by the Developer, including manufacturer information, shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to the Trial Operation. Developer shall submit a completed copy of the Large Generating Facility data requirements contained in Appendix 1 to the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures. It shall also include any additional information provided to Connecting Transmission Owner for the Interconnection Feasibility Study and Interconnection Facilities Study. Information in this submission shall be the most current Large Generating Facility design or expected performance data. Information submitted for stability models shall be compatible with NYISO standard models. If there is no compatible model, the Developer will work with a consultant mutually agreed to by the Parties to develop and supply a standard model and associated information. If the Developer’s data is different from what was originally provided to Connecting Transmission Owner and NYISO pursuant to an Interconnection Study Agreement among Connecting Transmission Owner, NYISO and Developer and this difference may be reasonably expected to affect the other Parties’ facilities or the New York State Transmission System, but does not require the submission of a new Interconnection Request, then NYISO will conduct appropriate studies to determine the impact on the New York State Transmission System based on the actual data submitted pursuant to this Article 24.3. Such studies will provide an estimate of any additional modifications to the New York State Transmission System, Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities, or System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades based on the actual data and a good faith estimate of the costs thereof. The Developer shall not begin Trial Operation until such studies are completed. The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of any modifications required by the actual data, including the cost of any required studies.

  • Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).

  • Negotiation Process (a) If either the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN (“CEO”) or the Chairperson of the Registry Stakeholder Group (“Chair”) desires to discuss any revision(s) to this Agreement, the CEO or Chair, as applicable, shall provide written notice to the other person, which shall set forth in reasonable detail the proposed revisions to this Agreement (a “Negotiation Notice”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the CEO nor the Chair may

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