Open Issues Sample Clauses

Open Issues. Notwithstanding any provision of the Registry Agreement to the contrary (including Sections 7.6 and 7.7 thereof), Registry Operator agrees that the following requirements, procedures and provisions of the Registry Agreement (including the documents incorporated by reference therein) may be modified and amended by ICANN after the date hereof, without the consent of Registry Operator: Specification 6 – Registry Interoperability and Continuity Specifications; Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements (§ 1 of Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement); Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (§ 2.a of Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement); Registration Restriction Dispute Resolution Procedure (§ 2.a of Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement); Uniform Rapid Suspension (§ 2.b of Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement); Specification 11 – Public Interest Commitments (including the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process); and any provision or term of the Registry Agreement that is the subject of advice or comment from the Governmental Advisory Committee (including any advice or comment to include new provisions in the Registry Agreement). Any such modifications and amendments are referred to herein as a “Required Change.” ICANN’s right to implement Required Changes under this Supplement shall expire on 15 January 2014. ICANN agrees that when it determines to make a Required Change, ICANN will provide Registry Operator written notice of such Required Change, which notice shall specify the terms of the Required Change (a “Change Notice”). Registry Operator agrees that, following its receipt of a Change Notice, the Required Change related thereto will be immediately effective and binding on ICANN and Registry Operator, and shall be incorporated by reference into the Registry Agreement without any action of the parties. If requested by ICANN, Registry Operator shall execute an amendment to the Registry Agreement to reflect any Required Change. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of a Change Notice, Registry Operator may terminate the Registry Agreement upon five (5) calendar days written notice to ICANN; provided, however, that Registry Operator may not terminate the Registry Agreement pursuant to this Section 1(c) following the first delegation of the TLD to nameservers designated by Registry Operator into the root-zone. Upon expiration of such thirty (30) calendar day period, Registry Operator may not thereafter terminate ...

Open Issues. If a Notice of Disagreement has been received by the Buyer pursuant to paragraph 1.2 of this Schedule 3, the parties shall try to amicably resolve the issue. Should they fail to do so within twenty (20) Business Days of the end of the aforesaid objection period of forty-five (45) days (for the purpose of this Schedule the “Disagreement Date”) then any such unresolved issue (for the purpose of this Schedule the “Open Issues”) shall be submitted to and settled by an accountant of a firm of international repute and with sufficient and relevant expertise (for the 132 purpose of this Schedule the “Accountant”) to be jointly appointed by the parties within fourteen (14) days of the Disagreement Date or, if the parties fail to agree on such appointment within that period, each party may make an application to the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to appoint the Accountant.

Open Issues. A comprehensive and consolidated list of all outstanding problems related to the Product installation, project or other development effort that are identified by MetroPCS and Supplier as remaining to be resolved.

Open Issues. 4-21 1.4 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE 2-1: FEEDER NETWORK BUILDING BLOCKS........................................2-8 FIGURE 3-1: CENTRAL STATION RELEASE 1 - REDUNDANT CONFIGURATION..................3-16 FIGURE 3-2: CENTRAL STATION RELEASE 2 - REDUNDANT CONFIGURATION..................3-17 FIGURE 3-3: CSC BLOCK DIAGRAM....................................................3-18 FIGURE 3-4: TERMINAL STATION DIGITAL CARD (SIC)..................................3-19 TABLE 2-I: AIRSTAR AND FEEDER PRODUCT TERMINOLOGY.................................2-8 TABLE 3-1: TRAFFIC TRANSPORT FUNCTIONS............................................3-9 TABLE 3-2: TRAFFIC CAPACITY OPTIONS...............................................3-9 TABLE 3-3: RADIO SPECIFICATIONS (26 GHZ).........................................3-10 TABLE 3-4: RADIO SPECIFICATIONS (10 GHZ).........................................3-12 TABLE 3-5: TERMINAL STATION......................................................3-14

Open Issues. If so agreed between the Parties as set forth in Article 14.2, the Open Issues shall be submitted to and settled by an accountant of an independent reputable firm of accountants (for the purpose of this Article 4.4 to be referred to as the "Accountant") to be jointly appointed by the Parties within three weeks after Disagreement Date or, if the Parties fail to agree on such appointment within that period, by the Chairman of the Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants ("NIVRA"). The Parties shall within two weeks after such appointment submit the Closing Balance Sheet and statements of their respective positions in writing to the Accountant. The Accountant shall determine the further procedural rules in his discretion. The Parties undertake to procure that the Accountant shall then finally resolve the Open Issues by way of a binding advice ("bindend advies") in accordance with this Agreement and that the Accountant shall notify the Parties of his decision, inter alia certifying the amounts of the Net Working Capital and the Net Outstanding Indebtedness which he has established, as promptly as possible and in any event no later than eight weeks after his appointment. The fees and expenses arising out of the engagement of the Accountant shall be borne by the party which has on balance been put in the wrong or otherwise as allocated by the Accountant in his discretion. The failure of either the Seller or the Purchaser to timely submit to the Accountant a written statement of its position or to otherwise fail to respond to any request of the Accountant for information shall not preclude or delay the Accountant's determination of the Open Issues on the basis of the information which will have been submitted. The Parties shall, and the Purchaser shall procure that the Company shall, give all information and assistance to the Accountant requested by the Accountant for the preparation of his binding advice. Simultaneously with providing such information to the Accountant, the Parties shall provide each other with the same information.

Open Issues. In the first 6 months of the project, work in WP3 focused on the most crucial architectural questions, with the aim of laying the architectural foundations for the technical work in the project. Naturally, it was not possible to answer all questions in this limited amount of time. Some open issues were identified that will have to be addressed in the next iteration of the work on the FogProtect architecture. The most important open issues are: ● Pre-run-time architectural issues. The current architecture focuses on the components and their interaction during run time. But there has to be some work done before the system enters this phase. For example, the creation of policies and the provision of a safe configuration to start from are necessary, and it is not yet clear if the Reference Model should contain a pre-deployment (e.g. design time) model of the starting configuration or all possible configuration variants for a system. The interplay of components pre-run-time is not trivial and has to be investigated further. ● Protecting the FogProtect system itself. While the applications protected by FogProtect are run in a data mesh, this may not apply to all the FogProtect components themselves. Hence, it is not clear yet how the security of the FogProtect system can be guaranteed. Of course, the core FogProtect components are less numerous and diverse than application components and resources, so it can be secured more easily by ‘conventional’ means. ● Distribution and decentralization. The current high-level architecture abstracts from the question of how the FogProtect components are to be distributed in the computing continuum. This remains a challenging question, also considering the potential issues stemming from decentralized decision-making.

Open Issues. Notwithstanding the widespread acceptance of the SNIDER BROS. and EASTGROUP analysis, three important issues remain u▇▇▇▇▇▇ed: the importance of the traditional elements, what constitutes necessity for consolidation, what constitutes prejudice to an objecting creditor's interests, and the relationship between creditor reliance and necessity. [ ], 2000 Page 24 IMPORTANCE OF THE ELEMENTS. The precise significance of the traditional substantive consolidation elements in the balancing analysis is unclear. SNIDER BROS. and those cases directly following its balancing standa▇▇ ▇▇▇d to relegate the substantive consolidation elements to a secondary role. That is, the elements in aggregate may be considered as a single factor in the balancing analysis. SNIDER BROS., 18 B.R. at 234. EASTGROUP PROPERTIES views the element▇ ▇▇ ▇actually relevant to a determination by the court as to substantial identity between the entities and the necessity for consolidation. The importance under the balancing test of factors other than the presence of the elements of consolidation, that is, prejudice to creditors, necessity of consolidation, and reliance by creditors on the separate credit of the separate entities, suggests that the absence of even most of the traditional elements does not provide the same protection against substantive consolidation that it did before the wide-spread adoption of the balancing test. WHAT CONSTITUTES NECESSITY OR BENEFIT. SNIDER BROS. and EASTGROUP compel proponents of substantive consolid▇▇▇▇▇ to prove the necessity of consolidation or the benefits to be derived or the harm to be avoided from consolidation. The determination of necessity, benefits, or avoided harm is, however, dependent on a court's perspective of the type of benefit that is promoted by consolidation. Some reported decisions require benefits that are distributional, I.E., reallocation of certain creditors' rights to a greater number of other creditors. In EASTGROUP PROPERTIES V. SOUTHERN MOTEL ASSOC., LTD., 935 F.2d 245, 250 (11th Cir. 1991), a relevant factor supporting consolidation was that "absent substantive consolidation, the majority of creditors will receive only a small portion of their claims, while the equity interest holders may receive a substantial distribution." The Eleventh Circuit also appears to have viewed the fact that administrative and other priority claimants of one of the estates would receive a larger portion of their claims, as opposed to pre-petition unsec...

Open Issues. 4-21 1.4 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE 2-1: FEEDER NETWORK BUILDING BLOCKS........................................2-8 FIGURE 3-1: CENTRAL STATION RELEASE 1 - REDUNDANT CONFIGURATION..................3-16 FIGURE 3-2: CENTRAL STATION RELEASE 2 - REDUNDANT CONFIGURATION..................3-17 FIGURE 3-3: CSC BLOCK DIAGRAM....................................................3-18 FIGURE 3-4: TERMINAL STATION DIGITAL CARD (SIC)..................................3-19 [***] CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED

Open Issues. Social Web and Sciences