date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:07:17 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: "Tim Osborn" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Gents, As I have not heard anything further from you subsequent to Tim's email below, I will be doing the following: A. Will send response to FOI_O8-23 as drafted & circulated B. Will acknowledge and treat Mr. Holland's letter of 27 May as a separate request. I have acknowledged the request as such, and will draft a response regarding the referral of some elements of his request to the IPCC and answering the other sections. Who would be my contact with the IPCC to which I could forward this request? Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 1:11 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie >Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >Dear Dave, > >I've had a look through this initial draft and it sounds fine. Keith >and I will read it in more detail, hopefully this afternoon, with >specific reference to the public interest section. > >Can we treat Holland's follow-up letter as a separate request? As >Phil mentioned, Caspar Ammann can be rather slow at replying, so we >haven't yet heard whether any emails that he sent us were sent in >confidence on his part. Can we respond to the initial FOI request, >and leave the follow-up till we hear back from Ammann? > >Best regards > >Tim > >At 17:38 27/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Gents, >>An initial draft of a response to Mr. Holland based on the >'appropriate >>limit' and s.41, Information provided in confidence. In >particular, your >>input on the public interest in not disclosing the correspondence >>received by the University in this matter would be appreciated. >> >>This is a first draft so open to comment; the bits about >right of appeal >>are mandated by the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) >> > >> >Hi Dave >> >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my >letter over >> >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send >> >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I >> >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is >unreasonable - >> >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter >6 authors >> >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is >> >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into >> >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely >> >compliance with further , less demanding requests. >> >cheers >> >Keirth >> > >> >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >> >>Gents, >> >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June) >> >> >> >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland? >> >> >> >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr. >> >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was >going to make >> >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something >> >along the lines >> >>of .... >> >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your >> >letter of 31 >> >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request >> >under this >> >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?" >> >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the >requester is not >> >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the >> >question... Your >> >>opinions? >> >> >> >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly >> >> >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM >> >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >> >Subject: >> >> > >> >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil >> >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful >> >comments and on >> >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to >> >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you >, I intend >> >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to >Holland tomorrow >> >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments >> >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By >> >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that >> >I did not >> >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not >believe that this >> >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting >process in any >> >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence >will not be >> >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree. >> >> >thanks again >> >> >Keith >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >Professor Keith Briffa, >> >> >Climatic Research Unit >> >> >University of East Anglia >> >> >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >> > >> >> >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >> >> >Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> >> > >> >> >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Professor Keith Briffa, >> >Climatic Research Unit >> >University of East Anglia >> >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> > >> >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >> >Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> > >> >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ >> > >> > >> > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > >e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >phone: +44 1603 592089 >fax: +44 1603 507784 >web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > >