cc: <"Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" <k364atXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip Prof \" <email@example.com>>
date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:45:58 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner
to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" <T.OsbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Thanks for your efforts and engagement in this process. I can use what
you have stated here I think, and, in reality, I suspect that the case
will not be assessed prior to October (unless fast-tracked by the ICO),
so we may be in a position to add the IPCC position as supplemental
evidence later on (and indeed, if the ICO knows that the IPCC is
considering their position, they may defer a judgement until in
possession of the IPCC position)
Thanks for acting as 'our' advocate there....
By the way, if the IPCC wants input on UK FOIA/EIR legislation at their
meeting in October, I'm sure that I could fit a trip to Bali in! ;-)
>From: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk]
>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:12 AM
>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)
>Cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" <k364atXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip
>Prof \" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>Subject: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner
> Tim, Dave,
> I've spoken to Renate Christ who is head of the IPCC Secretariat
> in Geneva. I've given her a note about what we want, but we won't
> get a response by our August deadline.
> What will happen though is that the whole issue of National
> will be discussed at the next full IPCC plenary meeting in
> Bali in October. This is not a meeting that many scientists will
> go to. IPCC have got lawyers involved from their sponsoring
> UN organizations (UNEP and WMO). They have been alerted up to
>the issue by
> us and by others (mainly from US organizations like NOAA, DoE). They
> will come to a ruling then.
> I know this doesn't help us for this request, but hopefully
> future IPCC-related FOIs/EIRs will be easier to deal with.
> It seems as though they are taking the issue seriously. I did tell
> them that the various FOI acts probably differ slightly, but they
> seem to be aware of that.