Wednesday, March 28, 2012

2927.txt

cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" <T.OsbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <M.McgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" <J.ColamatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:36:47 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response
to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Phil,
Many thanks for your input on this. I do indeed have your good work on
the IPCC process and will include it and/or refer to it in my arguments
to the ICO.

Your comments regarding the IPCC are interested - I might have hoped
that we could have had something from them, but I guess we go with what
we have, Ironically, if the IPCC is nothing more than a loose
affiliation of academics, then the opinions that Tim gathered oddly have
more impact, particularly if it could be shown/stated that these folks
would be reluctant to work with us if this correspondence was disclosed.

As to the effect on the IPCC itself, it might be wise to remind them
that if we lose this, similar correspondence from ALL IPCC working
groups either in past, or in future, will be subject to disclosure under
the Act. I presume that your colleagues might have an opinion on the
effect that such disclosure would have on the quality, quantity and
nature of future exchanges between co-authors. The other thing to
remember is that this is not merely a UEA issue but one for any academic
in the UK participating in any future scientific collaboration....

I will make sure that all of you see all the drafts when done.... (soon
I hope!)

Cheers, Dave

>-----Original Message-----
>From: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:01 PM
>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
>Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Mcgarvie
>Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD)
>Subject: Re: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request -
>Response requirements (GOOD NEWS) [FOI_08-23]
>Importance: High
>
> Dave, Tim,
> I'm at an IPCC meeting this week. IPCC has rules
> and regulations, which we've sent you in the past. Tim
> can resend these if you don't have them. I have spoken
> to someone here. IPCC is only a small bureau in Geneva,
> and the various people who lead the Working Groups don't
> get to talk for IPCC. In effect no-one really does speak
> except Rajenda Pachauri the Chair. He is only part time as
> well as he runs a centre in India as well.
> So I don't think IPCC can really help with either
> item. If any of us were to become involved in IPCC, then
> we agree when we join not to discuss conclusions or drafts
> with others whilst these are being put together.
> The next set of authors will be chosen in April 2010
> with nominations taking place between Nov09 and Jan10.
> IPCC possibly may not care about what happened with AR4, but
> they would for anything with the next report. So we don't
> want to set a precedent now, as this could preclude anyone
> fom UEA being involved with the next report (AR5).
> In a way, we could argue that involvement is similar to
> reviewing a paper. When we do this we agree not to pass
> on the results to anyone until the paper is accepted or
> rejected.
> I have raised this issue with IPCC, but they are not
> that interested.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> Gents,
>> Just to confirm what I have already relayed to both Jonathan and
>> Michael, namely that the ICO has approved our deferral of a
>response to
>> 14 August.
>>
>> However, as noted below and previously, we still need to
>build our case.
>> What I need from you is as follows (to reiterate)
>>
>> 1. Some indication of the time it would take to locate all
>the requested
>> information, and the effect that this would have on your other work -
>> this is required for both a section 12 argument under FOIA, and a
>> 'manifestly unreasonable' exception (Reg. 12(4)(b)) under EIR
>>
>> 2. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this
>> information would have on the relationship between UEA and the IPCC -
>> this is required for section 27 under FOIA and Reg. 12(5)(a)
>under EIR
>> to show, in the latter case, an 'adverse effect' ion international
>> relations
>>
>> 3. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this
>> information would have on them - this is required for Reg.
>12(5)(f) to
>> show an adverse effect on the interests of the person(s) providing
>> information to UEA (the rough equivalent of the section 41
>> confidentiality exemption under FOIA).
>>
>> The more evidence we have, the stronger our case will be....
>I am happy
>> to meet on this if you wish but it's mostly a case of me just getting
>> the draft done now, and having the evidence to back up our
>assertions.
>>
>> Given the recent correspondence from the ICO, I would
>consider it highly
>> likely that they will choose to consider this under EIR but
>we will be
>> making a submission under both Acts.
>>
>> Cheers, Dave
>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:32 PM
>>> To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn
>>> Timothy Dr (ENV); Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD)
>>> Subject: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response
>>> requirements (GOOD NEWS)
>>> Importance: High
>>>
>>> Gents,
>>>
>>> I just had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman by the
>>> name of James Cooper at the ICO Helpline. I had phoned him
>to enquire
>>> about the possibility of citing section 40 under FOIA at
>this stage -
>>> he consulted with colleagues and gave me the opinion that this would
>>> be accepted and considered by the ICO.
>>>
>>> More importantly, having given him the case reference number for our
>>> matter, he informed me that a case officer had not yet been assigned
>>> and that it might be some time prior to that happening!
>Ergo, I have
>>> no-one to speak to at the ICO about this case with specific
>>> responsibility for it, and, it appears nothing will be happening at
>>> the ICO for some time in regards this request.
>>>
>>> Finally, and most crucially, I queried the 20 working days
>'deadline'
>>> for our submission to the ICO and was informed that there was no
>>> statutory force behind that time limit; it was there simply to
>>> 'encourage' institutions to respond in a timely manner. I outlined
>>> the fact that we were preparing a case under EIR and that
>several key
>>> figures and pieces of evidence were still in the process of being
>>> acquired, and, asked how firm the ICO would be on enforcing the
>>> deadline, or punishing us if we missed it. Mr. Cooper
>indicated that
>>> as nothing much would be happening with the information we
>sent to the
>>> ICO that they would be minded to allow us some 'slack' on
>the response
>>> time, as long as it was not indefinite. Indeed, he
>suggested that we
>>> either provide an alternative date, or, contact them we have our
>>> 'case' assembled and tell them that we are ready to transfer the
>>> requested information to them....
>>>
>>> In short, we have a lot more time to construct a
>well-reasoned case on
>>> this matter than their correspondence of 2 June 2009 would otherwise
>>> indicate. I suggest that I write the ICO to confirm this
>conversation
>>> with Mr. Cooper so as to 'nail' their position in place - I
>don't want
>>> to be hammered by the ICO in a Decision Notice for bad
>process if the
>>> ICO themselves have given us the go-ahead for that process... Do you
>>> concur?.
>>>
>>> I would further suggest that we work to gather more evidence to
>>> support our case (e.g. IPCC input) so that when we do
>submit our case,
>>> it is as strong as possible. Further evidence would greatly assist
>>> our claims under EIR in particular. The outline of that evidence has
>>> been already noted in my earlier emails to Tim & Phil.
>>>
>>> I will continue with the work on the intellectual framework of the
>>> case under both FOIA and EIR and will submit on Friday if possible
>>> (more likely early next week?)
>>>
>>> The final question is how we approach the issue of providing ALL the
>>> requested documents. We could simply defer what we would
>have said by
>>> 26 June to whatever date we do respond, or we could try to flush out
>>> their position earlier than that - any comments/ideas?
>>>
>>> I consider this very good news that will assist us in preparing as
>>> robust a case as possible.
>>>
>>> ____________________________
>>> David Palmer
>>> Information Policy & Compliance Manager
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, England
>>> NR4 7TJ
>>>
>>> Information Services
>>> Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523
>>> Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

No comments:

Post a Comment