cc: <"Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Jones Philip Prof \" > date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:45:58 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" Phil, 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! ;-) Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.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 \" , "Jones Philip >Prof \" >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 >FOIs/EIRs > 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. > > Cheers > Phil > > >