Exceptions to Informal Negotiations and Arbitration The Parties agree that the following Disputes are not subject to the above provisions concerning informal negotiations and binding arbitration: (a) any Disputes seeking to enforce or protect, or concerning the validity of, any of the intellectual property rights of a Party; (b) any Dispute related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, invasion of privacy, or unauthorized use; and (c) any claim for injunctive relief. If this provision is found to be illegal or unenforceable, then neither Party will elect to arbitrate any Dispute falling within that portion of this provision found to be illegal or unenforceable and such Dispute shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the courts listed for jurisdiction above, and the Parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of that court. CORRECTIONS There may be information on the Site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions, including descriptions, pricing, availability, and various other information. We reserve the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions and to change or update the information on the Site at any time, without prior notice.
Certification of claims by Statutory Auditors Any claim or document provided by the Concessionaire to the Authority in connection with or relating to receipts, income, payments, costs, expenses, accounts or audit, and any matter incidental thereto shall be valid and effective only if certified by its Statutory Auditors. For the avoidance of doubt, such certification shall not be required for exchange of information in the normal course of business including the submission of Monthly Fee Statements under Clause 19.5.
Certification of Meeting or Exceeding Tobacco-Free Workplace Policy Minimum Standards A. Grantee certifies that it has adopted and enforces a Tobacco-Free Workplace Policy that meets or exceeds all of the following minimum standards of:
RECEIPT AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICES 11.1 Immediately after it receives a demand or notice from any Noteholder in accordance with the Conditions, the Agent shall forward a copy to the Issuer.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
Privacy Consent; Consent to Publication of Agreement Contributor consents to the OpenID Privacy Policy and also agrees that OIDF may publish a copy of this Agreement as signed by Contributor via posting on the OIDF publicly-accessible website, and Contributor consents to such publication. If Contributor is a Legal Entity Contributor, it also represents that it has obtained appropriate consent under applicable law from all individuals listed in this Agreement to the publication of this Agreement and their personal information listed herein. The parties have formed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. OPENID FOUNDATION (“CONTRIBUTOR”) By: (Sign) Xxxx Xxxxxx By: (Sign) Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Name: (Print) Title: Program Manager 7/21/2022 Name: (Print) Title: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 7/18/2022
PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 28. Acceptance of this Settlement Agreement shall be sought at a hearing of the Central Regional Council of the MFDA on a date agreed to by counsel for Staff and the Respondent.
Scope of Application to Parties The Participating Generator and CAISO acknowledge that all Generators, except those specified in Section 2.2.1 of this Agreement, wishing to submit Bids to the CAISO through a Scheduling Coordinator must sign this Agreement in accordance with Section 4.6 of the CAISO Tariff.
NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC EVENTS AND MEETINGS 2 A. CONTRACTOR shall notify ADMINISTRATOR of any public event or meeting funded in 3 whole or in part by the COUNTY, except for those events or meetings that are intended solely to serve 4 clients or occur in the normal course of business.
Submission of Certified Payroll Transcripts for Public Works Contracts Only Contractors and Subcontractors on public works projects must submit monthly payroll transcripts to the Authorized User that has prepared or directs the preparation of the plans and specifications for a public works project, as set forth in the Bid Specifications. For Mini-Bid solicitations, the payroll records must be submitted to the entity preparing the agency Mini-Bid project specification. For “agency specific” Bids, the payroll records should be submitted to the entity issuing the purchase order. For all other OGS Centralized Contracts, such records should be submitted to the individual agency issuing the purchase order(s) for the work. Upon mutual agreement of the Contractor and the Authorized User, the form of submission may be submitted in a specified disk format acceptable to the Department of Labor provided: 1) the Contractor/Subcontractor retains the original records; and, (2) an original signed letter by a duly authorized individual of the Contractor or Subcontractor attesting to the truth and accuracy of the records accompanies the disk. This provision does not apply to Article 9 of the Labor Law building services contracts.
