cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Jones Philip Prof \" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \" date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:47:31 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: Re: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dear Dave, re. David Holland's follow-up requests... These follow-up questions appear directed more towards Keith than to me. But Keith may be unavailable for a few days due to family illness, so I'll attempt a brief response in case Keith doesn't get a chance to. Items (1) and (2) concern requests that were made by the IPCC Technical Support Unit (hosted by UCAR in the USA) and any responses would have been sent direct to the IPCC Technical Support Unit, to the email address specified in the quote included in item (2). These requests are, therefore, irrelevant to UEA. Item (3): we'll send the same enquiry to Ammann as we sent to our other colleagues, and let you know his response. Item (3) also asks for emails from "the journal Climatic Change that discuss any matters in relation to the IPCC assessment process". I can confirm that I have not received any such emails or other documents. I expect that a similar answer will hold for Keith, since I cannot imagine that the editor of a journal would be contacting us about the IPCC process. Best wishes Tim On Tue, May 27, 2008 6:30 pm, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > Gents, > Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland. Could you > provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with > Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence > with us to be confidential? > > Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform > the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and > ask him to limit it - the ICO Guidance states: > > 12. If an authority estimates that complying with a request will exceed > the cost limit, can advice and assistance be offered with a view to the > applicant refocusing the request? > > In such cases the authority is not obliged to comply with the request > and will issue a refusal notice. Included within the notice (which must > state the reason for refusing the request, provide details of complaints > procedure, and contain particulars of section 50 rights) could be advice > and assistance relating to the > > refocusing of the request, together with an indication of the > information that would be available within the cost limit (as required > by the Access Code). > > This should not preclude other 'verbal' contact with the applicant, > whereby the authority can ascertain the requirements of the applicant, > and the normal customer service standards that the authority usually > adopts. > > > And... our own Code of Practice states (Annex C, point 5) > > 5. Where the UEA is not obliged to supply the information requested > because the cost of doing so would exceed the "appropriate limit" (i.e. > cost threshold), and where the UEA is not prepared to meet the > additional costs itself, it should nevertheless provide an indication of > what information could be provided within the cost ceiling. > > This is based on the Lord Chancellors Code of Practice which contains a > virtually identical provision.... > > In effect, we have to help the requester phrase the request in such a > way as to bring it within the appropriate limit - if the requester > disregards that advice, then we don't provide the information and allow > them to proceed as they wish.... > > I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible 'by the book' in > this instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with > the statutory potential to end up with the ICO. > > Cheers, Dave > > ________________________________ > > From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@theiet.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:37 PM > To: David Palmer > Subject: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment > Process > > > Please find attached a response to your letter of 19th May 2008 > > David Holland > > > >