Home

Results 81 - 90 of 49,507 for increment. Search took 0.946 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
The second is in the use of Incremental Cost Analysis (ICA) to support additional investments in the mitigation of risks associated with various potential future scenarios. (...) Each increment that is selected to add robustness to an alternative has some ancillary benefit that a stakeholder cares about, and that they might be willing to sponsor. In addition, some grants often exist to subsidize best practices, which are accessible if an increment action is suited. In addition, increments may lead to multi-purpose projects allowing access to different sources of funds.
Language:English
Score: 896501 - https://en.unesco.org/crida/steps
Data Source: un
Global estimates of incremental investment require- ments are calculated on the basis of assumptions regarding fu- ture trends in population, economic growth rates and required technological progress. (...) In the table, the row on baseline incremental needs includes the costs of sustaining the current level of services from various sectors, given expected economic and popula- tion growth rates, and is estimated at $2.6 trillion per annum. At least half the estimated incremental investments for providing universal access to clean modern energy and for sustainable agriculture for food security would need to take place in developing countries.
Language:English
Score: 896501 - https://www.un.org/development...ads/sites/45/policybrief34.pdf
Data Source: un
© HEXAGO 2005 ::1 Marc Blanchet CTO, Hexago ( Director, North American IPv6 Task Force Member of the Board and Technical Directorate, IPv6Forum ) {mailto | sip}: Marc.Blanchet@hexago.com Challenges and Opportunities in Deploying IPv6 Applications © HEXAGO 2005 ::2 Plan • IPv6 ROI • End to end • IPng Recommendation • Incremental Deployment • Network Toolkit • TSP tunnel Broker • Case Studies • Conclusion © HEXAGO 2005 ::3 IPv6 Return on Investment • Many features of IPv6, taken separately, do not provide, at this time, sufficient ROI to justify a full upgrade, end-to-end, of the network, the operating systems and the applications. – Each feature has an equivalent fix in IPv4. – Large legacy installed base (IPv4-only) • The combination of IPv6 features help provide a better ROI, but still usually not sufficient. • Choices: – Upgrade the whole network, OS, apps. • Provides all the good features of IPv6 • If you can afford the upgrade, great. – Incremental deployment • Get the good features of IPv6 • Lower cost for deployment • Risk is manageable. (...) Change of network API. • Operating system: – Need to be IPv6 enabled • Network: – Lan, enterprise, edge, access, distribution, core, exchange, Internet, exchange, core, distribution, access, edge, enterprise, lan – Routers, firewalls, DNS, vpn servers, network management,. .. – Servers – • It is only when all pieces are IPv6 enabled that an IPv6 application works NetworkappsOS apps OS IPv6 √ IPv6 √ IPv6 √ IPv6 √IPv6 √ © HEXAGO 2005 ::5 IPng Recommendation • IETF IPng Recommendation [RFC1752: Jan 1995]: – The IPv6 transition plan is aimed at meeting four basic requirements: • Incremental upgrade. • Incremental deployment. • Easy Addressing. • Low start-up costs. • [RFC1752] Bradner, S. and A. Mankin, "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol", RFC 1752, January 1995. © HEXAGO 2005 ::6 How to deploy A) Upgrade everything B) Deploy incrementally: – Per host/per application: • One host-application at a time, as needed. – Have some IPv6 native backbone to aggregate traffic, deploy addressing, etc.. – IPv6 access over the IPv4 network – Use transition technique to give IPv6 connectivity to the « far » hosts – In an efficient network-wise way – Low upfront costs while providing early service © HEXAGO 2005 ::7 Write Your Requirements • Possible Requirements: – NAT traversal: is there an IPv4 NAT in the network?
Language:English
Score: 896501 - https://www.itu.int/ITU-T/work...resentations/s2-1-blanchet.pdf
Data Source: un
Data availability for T&T is limited and the estimation is likely to rely on a significant amount of benchmark data. 232323232323 Key Modeling PrinciplesKey Modeling Principles Calculating Joint and Common Costs - EPMU Fixed common and joint costs between increments are recovered by use of an EPMU (Equi- proportionate Mark-up), whereby fixed common costs are recovered pro rata to incremental costs. The model will calculate common costs for subsets of increments, (such as the network) on a cost category by cost category basis as set out below: For each LRAIC cost category the sum of component incremental costs (where each component is removed in turn) is compared to the incremental cost for the subset of components as a whole (where all components are removed at once). The difference between these two sets of costs is the fixed common and joint costs across these increments for this cost category. These common costs to the subset of components are then allocated to the components using an EPMU approach. 24 The Model Development ProcessThe Model Development Process 25 Overview of Modeling ProcessOverview of Modeling Process Data Requirements CCA Revaluation Study  LRAIC Model Outputs  LRAIC Model Inputs 26262626262626262626 Data RequirementsData Requirements Economic costing Incremental costing Reporting i.
Language:English
Score: 890895.8 - https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/fina...CReddock-Downes_costing-en.pdf
Data Source: un
Incremental Funded in arbitrary increments Multi-year Funded over multiple years.
Language:English
Score: 890838.2 - https://unece.org/fileadmin/DA...UNECE_FundingTypeCode_D09B.xsd
Data Source: un
Website: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/fp.htm TRENDS and PROJECTIONS – Representation of women in the UN Secretariat with appointments of one year or more OHCHR  30 June 2001 – 30 June 2011   Representation of women (Percentage – Trends 10 year period 30 June 2001 - 30 June 2011) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Total % 60.0 68.3 50.0 59.0 21.7 53.3 46.7 33.9 66.7 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Total change % 8.3 9.0 31.6 -12.8 -39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average annual increment (Percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG June 2001 – June 2011 0.8 0.9 3.2 -1.3 -3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Year at which gender parity will be reached at current average annual increment P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG At June 2001 – June 2011 average annual increment Reached Reached Reached Never Never Stagnant Stagnant Reached Year at which gender parity will be reached at 2% annual increase P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG Reached Reached Reached 2019 2022 2036 2036 Reached *Source: Prepared on the basis of data provided by the Office of Human Resources Management.  
Language:English
Score: 890532.2 - https://www.un.org/womenwatch/...tariat/OHCHR%20Projections.pdf
Data Source: un
Website: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/fp.htm TRENDS and PROJECTIONS – Representation of women in the UN Secretariat with appointments of one year or more DESA    30 June 2001 – 30 June 2011   Representation of women (Percentage – Trends 10 year period 30 June 2001 - 30 June 2011) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Total % 47.1 54.0 48.1 37.0 50.0 53.2 49.1 34.1 39.3 20.5 30.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total change % 6.9 -11.1 3.2 -14.9 -18.8 -30.0 -50.0 0.0 Average annual increment (Percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG June 2001 – June 2011 0.7 -1.1 0.3 -1.5 -1.9 -0.3 -5.0 0.0 Year at which gender parity will be reached at current average annual increment P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG At June 2001 – June 2011 average annual increment Reached Never Reached Never Never Never Never Never Year at which gender parity will be reached at 2% annual increase P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG Reached 2018 Reached 2019 2026 2036 2036 2036 *Source: Prepared on the basis of data provided by the Office of Human Resources Management Required average annual increase to achieve 50% gender balance in all categories by 2015 (percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG Reached 3.3 Reached 4.0 7.4 12.5 12.5 12.5
Language:English
Score: 887048.6 - https://www.un.org/womenwatch/...2FEB2012_-__ten_year_trend.pdf
Data Source: un
Microsoft Word - EOSG_Projections June_2001-2011.doc Prepared by the Focal Point for Women, Coordination Division, UN Women, Website: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/fp.htm TRENDS and PROJECTIONS – Representation of women in the UN Secretariat with appointments of one year or more EOSG  30 June 2001 – 30 June 2011   Representation of women (Percentage – Trends 10 year period 30 June 2001 - 30 June 2011) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Total % 66.7 100.0 71.4 66.7 22.2 56.3 25.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 50.0 0.0 33.3 25.0 50.0 50.0 Total change % 33.3 -4.8 34.0 0.0 4.2 -50.0 -8.3 0.0 Average annual increment (Percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG June 2001 – June 2011 3.3 -0.5 3.4 0.0 0.4 -0.5 -0.8 0.0 Year at which gender parity will be reached at current average annual increment P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG At June 2001 – June 2011 average annual increment Reached Reached Reached Never 2041 Never Never Reached Year at which gender parity will be reached at 2% annual increase P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG Reached Reached Reached 2024 2017 2036 2024 Reached *Source: Prepared on the basis of data provided by the Office of Human Resources Management.
Language:English
Score: 887048.6 - https://www.un.org/womenwatch/...etariat/EOSG%20Projections.pdf
Data Source: un
Microsoft Word - ESCWA__Projections_June 2001-2011.doc Prepared by the Focal Point for Women, Coordination Division, UN Women, Website: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/fp.htm TRENDS and PROJECTIONS – Representation of women in the UN Secretariat with appointments of one year or more ESCWA  30 June 2001 – 30 June 2011   Representation of women (Percentage – Trends 10 year period 30 June 2001 - 30 June 2011) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Total % 62.5 55.6 63.2 59.1 23.3 31.8 15.0 34.6 28.6 14.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Total change % -6.9 -4.1 8.5 19.6 -14.3 -100.0 0.0 0.0 Average annual increment (Percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG June 2001 – June 2011 -0.7 -0.4 0.8 2.0 -1.4 -10.0 0.0 0.0 Year at which gender parity will be reached at current average annual increment P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG At June 2001 – June 2011 average annual increment Reached Reached 2032 2019 Never Never Stagnant Reached Year at which gender parity will be reached at 2% annual increase P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG Reached Reached 2020 2019 2029 2036 2036 Reached *Source: Prepared on the basis of data provided by the Office of Human Resources Management.  
Language:English
Score: 887048.6 - https://www.un.org/womenwatch/...tariat/ESCWA%20Projections.pdf
Data Source: un
Website: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/fp.htm TRENDS and PROJECTIONS – Representation of women in the UN Secretariat with appointments of one year or more ECLAC  30 June 2001 – 30 June 2011   Representation of women (Percentage – Trends 10 year period 30 June 2001 - 30 June 2011) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Total % 34.4 56.4 48.6 45.7 38.9 29.2 22.7 16.0 20.0 21.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total change % 22.0 -2.9 -9.7 -6.7 1.4 -100.0 0.0 100.0 Average annual increment (Percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG June 2001 – June 2011 2.2 -0.3 -1.0 -0.7 0.1 -10.0 0.0 10.0 Year at which gender parity will be reached at current average annual increment P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG At June 2001 – June 2011 average annual increment Reached Never Never Never 2211 Never Never Reached Year at which gender parity will be reached at 2% annual increase P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG Reached 2013 2021 2028 2025 2036 2036 Reached *Source: Prepared on the basis of data provided by the Office of Human Resources Management.
Language:English
Score: 887048.6 - https://www.un.org/womenwatch/...tariat/ECLAC%20Projections.pdf
Data Source: un