The MIT Framework creates a mechanism for ensuring scholarly research outputs are openly and equitably available to the broadest and most inclusive audience possible, while also providing valued services to our community. The vision we seek to advance through the application of this framework is one in which enduring, abundant, equitable, and meaningful access to scholarship serves to empower and inspire humanity.
In this guidance, we provide a framework for analyzing whether a digital asset is an investment contract and whether offers and sales of a digital asset are securities transactions. As noted above, under the Howey test, an "investment contract" exists when there is the investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others. Whether a particular digital asset at the time of its offer or sale satisfies the Howey test depends on the specific facts and circumstances. We address each of the elements of the Howey test below.
Free Download 4. Net Framework
tag_hash_104 🔥 https://urllie.com/2yjXyC 🔥
[1] This framework represents the views of the Strategic Hub for Innovation and Financial Technology ("FinHub," the "Staff," or "we") of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"). It is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Commission, and the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. Further, this framework does not replace or supersede existing case law, legal requirements, or statements or guidance from the Commission or Staff. Rather, the framework provides additional guidance in the areas that the Commission or Staff has previously addressed. See, e.g., Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO (Exchange Act Rel. No. 81207) (July 25, 2017) ("The DAO Report"); William Hinman, Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met Gary (Plastic), Remarks at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit: Crypto (June 14, 2018), available at -hinman-061418.
[2] The term "digital asset," as used in this framework, refers to an asset that is issued and transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain technology, including, but not limited to, so-called "virtual currencies," "coins," and "tokens."
[4] This framework is intended to be instructive and is based on the Staff's experiences to date and relevant law and legal precedent. It is not an exhaustive treatment of the legal and regulatory issues relevant to conducting an analysis of whether a product is a security, including an investment contract analysis with respect to digital assets generally. We expect that analysis concerning digital assets as securities may evolve over time as the digital asset market matures. Also, no one factor is necessarily dispositive as to whether or not an investment contract exists.
[7] Issuers of digital assets, like all issuers, must provide full and fair disclosure of material information consistent with the requirements of the federal securities laws. Issuers of digital assets should be guided by the regulatory framework and concepts of materiality. What is material depends upon the nature and structure of the issuer's particular network and circumstances. See TSC Industries v. Northway, 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976) (a fact is material "if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important" in making an investment decision or if it "would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available" to the shareholder).
To help managers ensure accountability and responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in government programs and processes, GAO developed an AI accountability framework. This framework is organized around four complementary principles, which address governance, data, performance, and monitoring. For each principle, the framework describes key practices for federal agencies and other entities that are considering, selecting, and implementing AI systems. Each practice includes a set of questions for entities, auditors, and third-party assessors to consider, as well as procedures for auditors and third- party assessors.
GAO's objective was to identify key practices to help ensure accountability and responsible AI use by federal agencies and other entities involved in the design, development, deployment, and continuous monitoring of AI systems. To develop this framework, GAO convened a Comptroller General Forum with AI experts from across the federal government, industry, and nonprofit sectors. It also conducted an extensive literature review and obtained independent validation of key practices from program officials and subject matter experts. In addition, GAO interviewed AI subject matter experts representing industry, state audit associations, nonprofit entities, and other organizations, as well as officials from federal agencies and Offices of Inspector General.
The framework is a vehicle to encourage NIMHD- and NIH-supported research that addresses the complex and multi-faceted nature of minority health and health disparities, including research that spans different domains of influence (biological, behavioral, physical/built environment, sociocultural environment, health care system) as well as different levels of influence (individual, interpersonal, community, societal) within those domains.
The framework also provides a classification structure that facilitates analysis of the NIMHD and NIH minority health and health disparities research portfolios to assess progress, gaps, and opportunities. Examples of factors are provided within each cell of the framework (e.g., family microbiome within the interpersonal-biological cell). These factors are not intended to be exhaustive. population experiencing health disparities, as well as other features of this framework, may be adjusted over time.
FinOps is an operational framework and cultural practice which maximizes the business value of cloud, enables timely data-driven decision making, and creates financial accountability through collaboration between engineering, finance, and business teams.
The framework is guided by the principal policy objectives of the United States as laid out in the Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets (March 9, 2022) and tailored to reflect the international aspects of our work:
Regional and Bilateral Engagements: The United States will identify where existing regional and bilateral engagements can be strengthened and, where appropriate, ramp up engagement with new partners to achieve our objectives with respect to digital assets. The United States will use these engagements under a coordinated framework for prioritization across departments and agencies to explore potential opportunities and risks of digital assets, engage in information sharing, drive the adoption and implementation of policies including with respect to AML/CFT; and provide technical assistance, where appropriate. The United States will explore opportunities for joint experimentation on digital assets technologies, market innovations and CBDCs, with this core set of allies and partners to increase our shared learning about ways to develop systems that meet our shared policy objectives.
Do not alter the elements of the IDDSI framework. Alterations may lead to confusion and errors in diet texture or drink selection for patients with dysphagia. Such errors have previously been associated with adverse events including choking and death.
The AWS Well-Architected Framework documents a set of foundational questions that help you to understand if a specific architecture aligns well with cloud best practices. The framework provides a consistent approach to evaluating systems against the qualities you expect from modern cloud-based systems, and the remediation that would be required to achieve those qualities. As AWS continues to evolve, and we continue to learn more from working with our customers, we will continue to refine the definition of well-architected.
This framework is intended for those in technology roles, such as chief technology officers (CTOs), architects, developers, and operations team members. It describes AWS best practices and strategies to use when designing and operating a cloud workload, and provides links to further implementation details and architectural patterns. For more information, see the AWS Well-Architected homepage.
The framework plan is a living, breathing plan and must be revisited periodically to best support the teaching, research and patient care missions of the university. After making significant progress on Framework 2.0, campus planners engaged faculty, staff and students to inform the next iteration of the framework through a series of surveys, open meetings and reviews.
The original framework plan was completed in 2010. By 2017, the university had updated the plan through the release of Framework 2.0. Now, Ohio State is once again revisiting the framework plan after completing many of the important initiatives outlined in the previous plans.
While each framework plan is a broader planning vision, individual projects over $4 million require Board of Trustees approval. For the latest information on construction related to Framework 2.0, please visit Time and Change: Building the Future.
The conceptual framework for biodiversity and ecosystems services is to support the analytical work of the Platform, to guide the development, implementation and evolution of its work programme, and to catalyse a positive transformation in the elements and interlinkages that are the causes of detrimental changes in biodiversity and ecosystems and subsequent loss of their benefits to present and future generations. This conceptual and analytical tool is to underpin all IPBES functions and provide structure and comparability to the syntheses that IPBES will produce at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions. 0852c4b9a8
sample mba project report free download
free downloadable music to phone