Policy Language. All policies of insurance required to be maintained pursuant to this Section 5.9 shall be issued in English, with a clause in such policies stating that the English language version will prevail over any other version should any dispute arise regarding policy language.
Policy Language. The Company grants MGA authority to utilize only insurance contract wordings, endorsement wordings and rates that are approved by the Company and are properly filed and approved, to the extent necessary, by the appropriate regulatory authorities of the State of Florida or of such other states in which the Company is licensed and authorized to transact insurance.
Policy Language. Purpose and Scope
Policy Language. Policies are specified in the GlueQoS policy language. The language provides a set of built in operators to specify ac- ceptable aspect configurations, as well as the ability to ex- tend the system with functions to measure operating con- ditions (such as load, available energy, and bandwidth). A configuration includes which aspects should be used as well as what their operating parameters should be. Each client to server session is associated with a set of adaptlets [19]. An adaptlet conceptually encapsulates a pair of client and server aspects. This includes the provided and required interfaces of client and server aspects. This scop- ing of aspects can be viewed in analogy to the “aspect per” scoping of AspectJ but based on a client/server negotiated session. The adaptlet abstraction serves to properly type the “connection” between cooperating aspect instances. Our work is focused on automating the process of configuring these instances using a client-server handshake. During the handshake the two parties agree on a set of adaptlets to use, as well as the values of any parameters they expose. In this section we detail the constructs in GlueQoS used to automate this handshake including support for boolean constraints, linear constraints, and run-time monitoring.
Policy Language. The language in the policy of Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 is obscure and unclear in places, leading to a variety of interpretations of the policy (Potocky, 2010). The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 defines human trafficking as “a form of modern-day slavery”, yet no other forms of trafficking are identified (Potocky, 2010). While the term “trafficking” is not synonymous with “movement”, it is commonly used in this manner and often misunderstood to be a requirement in qualifying as “trafficking” (Potocky, 2010). Additionally, the term “abolition” has been commonly designated to refer to prostitution, rather than slavery, confusing the issue further and placing less emphasis on the crime of slavery and more on the criminalization of prostitution (Potocky, 2010). Without clear legislation using commonly defined terminology, confusion and misinterpretations around the issue of sex trafficking will continue to exist, resulting in the failure of the protection of the victims and the legal methods of justice for the perpetrators of sex trafficking (Potocky, 2010). This will only further impede progressive and effective policy needed through the collaboration of the public sector, the private sector, and the government agencies (Potocky, 2010). The multitude of variations in definitions of trafficking, including the differences found among the state, federal, and international arena only further confuses an already complex issue (Potocky, 2010). Advocating for the use of plain language of the issue, such as using the term “slavery” in place of “human trafficking”, will allow for less confusion and unproductive discourse on the issue and more action on solving the problem (Potocky, 2010). This type of confusion and uncertainty results in a misinformed or misunderstood legal system; thereby resulting in the inability to effectively prosecute the perpetrator and provide proper rehabilitation services for the victims (Potocky, 2010).
