Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.
SUPPLIER PUBLICATIONS 4.1 Any marketing materials in relation to this Framework Agreement that that Supplier produces must comply in all respects with the Branding Guidance. The Supplier will periodically update and revise such marketing materials.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Updates “Updates” are changes that do not require a change to the established Centralized Contract terms and conditions. Updates may include: Centralized Contract changes and updates made in accordance with the previously approved pricing formula (e.g. discount from list price); adding new products or services within the established, previously approved pricing structure; lowering pricing of products or services already on Contract, deleting products or services available through the Centralized Contract, adding product or service that do not fall under the previously established price structure or discounts under the Contract, re-bundled products, and other updates not listed above that are deemed to be in the best interest of the State and do not result in a change to the established Centralized Contract terms and conditions. Updates must be submitted to OGS for review, and must be accompanied by a justification of reasonableness of price if the change results in a change in pricing methodology. OGS will notify Contractor in writing if approved.
Marketing Materials (a) During the term of this Agreement, the Sub-Adviser agrees to furnish the Manager at its principal office for prior review and approval by the Manager all written and/or printed materials, including but not limited to, PowerPointÒ or slide presentations, news releases, advertisements, brochures, fact sheets and other promotional, informational or marketing materials (the “Marketing Materials”) for internal use or public dissemination, that are produced or are for use or reference by the Sub-Adviser, its affiliates or other designees, broker-dealers or the public in connection with the Series, and Sub-Adviser shall not use any such materials if the Manager reasonably objects in writing within five business days (or such other period as may be mutually agreed) after receipt thereof. Marketing Materials may be furnished to the Manager by first class or overnight mail, facsimile transmission equipment, electronic delivery or hand delivery.
Root-‐zone Information Publication ICANN’s publication of root-‐zone contact information for the TLD will include Registry Operator and its administrative and technical contacts. Any request to modify the contact information for the Registry Operator must be made in the format specified from time to time by ICANN at xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/domains/root/.
JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.
zone Information Publication ICANN’s publication of root-zone contact information for the TLD will include Registry Operator and its administrative and technical contacts. Any request to modify the contact information for the Registry Operator must be made in the format specified from time to time by ICANN at xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/domains/root/.
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.
REGULATORY FILINGS AND CAISO TARIFF COMPLIANCE 3.1 Filing
