Review of Public Submissions Sample Clauses

Review of Public Submissions. On August 10, 2010, the ATRT published a 20-page summary of the public comments it received during the initial public comment forum.76 The summary begins with a hyperlinked list of the commentators. The structure of the summary follows the structure of the questionnaire, matching shortened comments with specific questions. The summary is detailed and thorough, but it is not always evident whether a statement has been summarized or rephrased or quoted in its original form. On August 20, 2010, the ATRT also published an index mapping public comments against its working groups and indicating the main points made by each commentator.77 74 ATRT, “A&T RT Meeting Agenda,” May 5-6, 2010, xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/en/reviews/affirmation/agenda- atrt-f2f-meeting-5-6may10-en.pdf. 75 ATRT, “Brussels Statement from the Accountability and Transparency Review Team,” June 29, 2010, xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/en/announcements/announcement-29jun10-en.htm. 76 ATRT, “Summary of Public Comments on the Questions to the Community on Accountability and Transparency within ICANN,” August 10, 2010, xxxx://xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx/lists/atrt-questions- 2010/pdfEt8zX6yFW1.pdf. 77 ATRT, “Public Comments Index Against ATRT Work Teams and Highlights,” August 20, 2010, xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/en/reviews/affirmation/index-of-public-comments-20aug10-en.pdf. The substance of the public comments varies widely. Some comments focused on single issues, while others include answers to all of the ATRT questions posted online. One submission includes an entire white paper titled “A Fresh Start for ICANN.” While some commentators acknowledge that ICANN has taken efforts to improve accountability, other submissions state that different and improved mechanisms are needed to hold the organization – and the Board – accountable for its actions. Some state that ICANN is not equally accountable to all stakeholders but rather mostly to its contracting partners and governments. Several commentators argue that mechanisms are needed to prevent the capture of ICANN by some interest groups. Others suggest that governments, contracting parties or “the independent private sector” are too powerful within the organization. One of the most common criticisms concerns a lack of transparency of ICANN’s decision making and of the Board’s deliberations. Some submissions call for better explanations of Board decisions and the rationale behind them. Other comments state that it is unclear whether ICANN staff have considered the community’s comme...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Review of Public Submissions

  • Review of Submittals A/E and ODR review is only for conformance with the design concept and the information provided in the Contract Documents. Responses to submittals will be in writing. The approval of a separate item does not indicate approval of an assembly in which the item functions. The approval of a submittal does not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for any deviation from the requirements of the Contract unless the Contractor informs the A/E and ODR of such deviation in a clear, conspicuous, and written manner on the submittal transmittal and at the time of submission, and obtains the A/E’s and Owner’s written specific approval of the particular deviation.

  • Review of Agreement Each party acknowledges that it has had time to review this agreement and, as desired, consult with counsel. In the interpretation of this agreement, no adverse presumption shall be made against any party on the basis that it has prepared, or participated in the preparation of, this agreement.

  • Review of Personnel File Upon written authority from an employee, OC shall permit the President of the Union or their designate to review that employee's personnel file in the office in which the file is normally kept in order to facilitate the proper investigation of a grievance.

  • Review of Personnel Files Every member shall be allowed to review any of his/her personnel files except "confidential law enforcement records" and "trial preparation records" as defined in Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 at any time, upon request and reasonable notice. Such request shall be made to the supervisor directly responsible for maintenance of such files. Review of the files shall be made in the presence of such supervisor or the supervisor's designated representative. For the Division master personnel file, the request shall be made to the member's Subdivision Deputy Chief or his/her designated representative. Any member, or the member's Lodge representative, may copy documents in the member's file. The City may levy a charge for such copying, which charge shall bear a reasonable relationship to actual costs. A member will be notified in writing any time records within his/her personnel, background, IAB, and/or payroll file(s) are requested, as a public records request pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43, provided the City determines that the request is proper under applicable law. A member may request copies of any records provided under this paragraph, and these copies shall be provided at no cost to the member.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 9. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan. SCHEDULE 5

  • Ongoing Review and Revisions As set forth in Section 35.7, the Parties have agreed to the coordination and exchange of data and information under this Agreement to enhance system reliability and efficient market operations as systems exist and are contemplated as of the Effective Date. The Parties expect that these systems and the technology applicable to these systems and to the collection and exchange of data will change from time to time throughout the term of this Agreement. The Parties agree that the objectives of this Agreement can be fulfilled efficiently and economically only if the Parties, from time to time, review and, as appropriate, revise the requirements stated herein in response to such changes, including deleting, adding, or revising requirements and protocols. Each Party will negotiate in good faith in response to such revisions the other Party may propose from time to time. Nothing in this Agreement, however, shall require any Party to reach agreement with respect to any such changes, or to purchase, install, or otherwise implement new equipment, software, or devices, or functions, except as required to perform this Agreement.

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

  • Audit Findings Vendor shall implement any required safeguards as identified by Citizens or by any audit of Vendor’s privacy and security controls.

  • Claims Submission We will submit your claims and assist you in any way we reasonably can to help get your claims paid. Your insurance company may need you to supply certain information directly. It is your responsibility to comply with their request. Please be aware that the balance of your claim is your responsibility whether or not your insurance company pays your claim. Your insurance benefit is a contract between you and your insurance company; we are not party to that contract.

  • TIMELINESS OF BILLING SUBMISSION The parties agree that timeliness of billing is of the essence to this Contract and recognize that the City is on a fiscal year. All xxxxxxxx for dates of service prior to July 1 must be submitted to the City no later that the first Friday in August of the same year.

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