Panel Discussion Sample Clauses

Panel Discussion. The following speakers partook in a panel discussion regarding the research results of the project: Xxxx XXXXXX: Head of sector "Youth Communities Management and Support", Directorate General for Education and Culture, European Commission Xxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXX: President Eurodesk and MOVE Advisory Board member Xxxx XXXXX: President of Erasmus Student Network Xxxxxx XXXXXXXX: Research and Youth Policy Officer, Partnership between the EC and the XxX in the field of youth Youth mobility in times of economic crisis and beyond: has youth mobility changed post-economic crisis in Europe? Xxxx XXXXX highlighted that there are different regions of the EU and that different populations have behaved differently in the times of crisis. After the economic crisis, there was a big investment in youth mobility – it was used by several entities to combat societal issues. In terms of higher education, numbers show that it did not suffer; there are more students, but not necessarily diverse students. Xxxx XXXXXX stressed that youth mobility does have a positive impact for young people in the labour market; language skills improve, young people become more independent and better team players (in terms of EVS), and they become aware of cultural differences. Erasmus+ has not been cut financially, and this is not foreseen. Xxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXX stated that in Germany, very few young people have mobility experiences. Mobility programmes must be adapted to every country’s complex reality (some countries face brain drain, others are much more balanced for example). Xxxxxx XXXXXXXX emphasised that the focus should not just be on how mobility has changed, but how the lives of young people have changed. Complexity is the key word. Becoming an adult is complex, young people have less and less jobs, and face increasing anxiety and performance pressure. Mobility can also reinforce inequality. Xx. Xxxxxxxx stated that mobility programmes should focus on quality not quantity – numbers do not show the impact of mobility. He summed up mobility in 3 key words: complexity, inequality, quality. A major challenge for youth mobility is young people’s lack of information. What is the role of Youth Information in addressing the negative effects of mobility and boosting the positive ones? - Personalised support to young people is crucial, and they must be educated in formal and non-formal ways. - Before information comes basic awareness that this is a life choice. In higher education it is a given, but ...
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Panel Discussion. Could Trade Negotiations Drive Deeper Regulatory Cooperation on Pesticides? Xxxx Xxxxxx, Canada Grains Council served as moderator for this panel. Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief Ag Trade Negotiator/CAN, spoke about the dynamics of free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations and other forums that advance stakeholders’ pesticide interests. Trade agreements deepen partnerships by negotiating rules that are fair and transparent and that do not obstruct trade. Cooperation is the basis for negotiations. When NAFTA began, there was a dedicated group to address non-tariff barriers to trade including sanitary and phytosanitary issues. Regulatory cooperation is also a key component of the new agreement. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, Secretary’s Trade Counsel/USDA, began his remarks by asking what kind of trade agreements we want? As free traders, for farmers, all trade agreements are welcome. However, regulatory views on FTAs are less clear as some see trade agreements as something that can result in better outcomes, and some are concerned that trade agreements pose unnecessary constraints. He questioned if trade agreements would continue to exist in the future as there is a threshold issue. How many issues can you put in the boat before it sinks? Xxxxx Xxxxx, DTB Associates/Registrant Trade Advisor noted that elimination of most tariff and non-tariff barriers was done through NAFTA and it is very clean in this regard. The new agreement will bring in some new areas of trade liberalization (i.e., digital trade) and some new rules but how to resolve disagreements is anticipated to still be an issue. Forums like the TWG needs to continue to meet. Question: There are about 300 trade agreements around the world, if there were to be a more ambitious effort to increase regulatory cooperation, what would the hard obligation look like? Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, USDA: When you get into regulatory policy and start asking people to make changes, it gets very hard. So, you should begin by looking at existing agreements, and then ask how you can strengthen the existing rules. Looking at international SPS standards, we start to bump up against resistance. Risk assessment is based on scientific principles and this is an area that would need to be fleshed out in the obligations. He suggested: 1) Look at USA laws; 2) Incrementally strengthen existing agreements; 3) Identify a test case or prototype in one area that has a unique problem that needs a unique solution that allows you to be more targeted.‌
Sample 1
Panel Discussion. Tentative list of Panelists: (40 minutes) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
Sample 1
Panel Discussion. Moderators and speakers
Sample 1
Panel Discussion. TransformUS as a Solution to a Crisis? What Crisis?
Sample 1
Panel Discussion. Organisation (NGO) and holds observers’ status with several United Nations agencies involved with shipping industry matters, notably the International Maritime Organization and working closely together with maritime administrators in e.g. the European Community and the United States. In recognition of its position within the international shipping community, the US Coast Guard formed a partnership agreement with BIMCO to jointly address issues of regulatory compliance and maritime governance in an effort to find practical and workable solutions for shipowners plying US trade. BIMCO is committed to promote fair and equitable international shipping policy and regulatory matters and seeks to continue to be the selected and trusted sparring partner and source of practical information by policymakers and other stakeholders. About International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO) INTERTANKO has been the voice of independent tanker owners since 1970, ensuring that the oil that keeps the world turning is shipped safely, and Strategic Studies (IDSS), which was established ten years earlier on 30 July 1996. Like its predecessor, RSIS was established as an autonomous entity within the Nanyang Technological University (NTU). The School exists to develop a community of scholars and policy analysts at the forefront of Asia- Pacific security studies and international affairs. Its three core functions are research, graduate teaching and networking activities in the Asia-Pacific region. It produces cutting edge security related research in Asia-Pacific Security, Conflict and Non-Traditional Security, International Political Economy, and Country and Area Studies. The School‘s activities are aimed at assisting policymakers to develop comprehensive approaches to strategic thinking on issues related to security and stability in the Asia-Pacific and their implications for Singapore. EVOLVING CHALLENGES 07 2nd PANEL DISCUSSION: CONVERGING SOLUTIONS CLOSING REMARKS 10 PROGRAMME LISTS Moderator and Speakers Participants 17 CONTACTS Details of ReCAAP Focal Points/ Contact Point
Sample 1
Panel Discussion. Panelists Xxx Xxxxxxxx, XX Xxxxx Xxx, MD Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, MD Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, PharmD VI. Readiness Assessment Clinics and Jurisdictions Can • Complete Clinical Data • Assess Insurance Coverage • Assess RWAP Coverage • Obtain Patient and Community Input • Assess Clinic Readiness • Put Change in Perspective • Establish Partnerships • Convene and Share Insights • Determine Coverage and Costs • Summarize Feedback Develop an Action Plan: Where would you like to be one year from now? Polling Question 3 What do you feel is the #1 area your jurisdiction could MOST use TA in the coming months to increase local uptake of LAIs for treatment? Obtaining Community Input A (holding town halls, surveys, etc) B Bring in National Experts to Present to Jurisdiction, Clinics, Planning Council, etc. C Help Local Clinics Access Training, Coaching, TA, Tools, etc. D Help With Local Media/Social Media Campaigns to Increase Uptake of LAIs E Help Jurisdiction Identify 'Gaps' Where EHE Funding Could Increase Uptake F Help address "hardly reached" to avoid increasing disparities G Other (please write in chat)
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Panel Discussion

  • Informal Discussion If an employee has a problem relating to a work situation, the employee is encouraged to request a meeting with his or her immediate supervisor to discuss the problem in an effort to clarify the issue and to work cooperatively towards settlement.

  • Formal Discussion In the event that a difference of a general nature arises regarding interpretation, application, operation or alleged contravention of this Collective Agreement, the Union shall first attempt to resolve the difference through discussion with the Employer, as appropriate. If the difference is not resolved in this manner, it may become a policy grievance.

  • Informal Discussions The employee's concerns will be presented orally by the employee to the appropriate supervisor. Every effort shall be made by all concerned in an informal manner to develop an understanding of the facts and the issues in order to create a climate which will lead to resolution of the problem. If the employee is not satisfied with the informal discussion(s) relative to the matter in question, he/she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure.

  • Mutual Discussions The Employer and the Union acknowledge the mutual benefits to be derived from dialogue between the parties and are prepared to discuss matters of common interest.

  • Formal Discussions Section 3.1.1. Pursuant to 5 USC 7114(a)(2)(A), the Union shall be given the opportunity to be represented at any formal discussion between one or more employees it represents and one or more representatives of the Employer concerning any grievance (to include settlement discussions) or any personnel policy or practice or other general condition of employment. This right to be represented does not extend to informal discussions between an employee and a supervisor concerning a personal problem, or work methods and assignments.

  • Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposal relative to all relevant policies and advise that it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. Attachment B provides an evaluation of the proposed development agreement in relation to the relevant MPS policies.

  • Settlement Discussions This Agreement is part of a proposed settlement of matters that could otherwise be the subject of litigation among the Parties hereto. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of any kind. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any applicable state rules of evidence, this Agreement and all negotiations relating thereto shall not be admissible into evidence in any proceeding other than to prove the existence of this Agreement or in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement.

  • Discussions Within 14 days of the date of the notice under Clause 23.2 (Advance Notice) of this article, the Union and the Employer will commence discussions for the purpose of reaching agreement as to the effects of the technological change and in what way, if any, this agreement should be amended.

  • Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. ≥ Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.

  • - ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND INFORMAL DISCUSSION The employee shall discuss the issue with the immediate supervisor on an informal basis to identify and attempt resolution of the employee’s issue within ten (10) business days following the day the issue arose. The employee shall have the affirmative responsibility to inform the supervisor that the issue is being raised pursuant to this grievance procedure. The immediate supervisor shall meet with the employee, secure clarification of the issue, consider the employee’s proposed solution, and discuss possible alternative solutions and/or other administrative remedies. The immediate supervisor shall inform the department’s personnel office, and the personnel director shall inform the union of the grievance. The immediate supervisor shall respond verbally within ten (10) business days following the meeting with the employee. Failure of the supervisor to respond within the time limit shall entitle the employee to process the issue to the next step.

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