cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , Keith Briffa , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:32:00 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Holland FOI/EIR case - ICO investigation - Draft response to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dear Dave (cc others), the case you've put together seems spot on to me. Some extra input from me, if it isn't too late: (1) On 24/07/2009 you wrote "Mr. Holland does not limit the request to the named persons but requests all correspondence relation to work of the two (2) named individuals in relation to their work as IPCC lead authors. Would we have correspondence relating to your work as lead authors that is with someone NOT named within the request?" I didn't answer and I don't think anyone else did. The answer, purely from memory, is "probably yes" and thus would add to the burden of searching, collating and redacting the information. (2) You also asked for more information relating to the burden involved and hence evidence to support the "manifestly unreasonable" exemption. This is for section 4 of your document E. (a) The time period covered is around 4 years. The drafting and reviewing process ran from 2004 through to publication in 2007. Some minor tasks (e.g. relating to data archival) arose after publication in 2008. (b) During a time period of 4 years, I expect that Keith and I would each have retained several thousand emails on a range of subjects. Some would be organised into folders and others would not. Given the request pertains to correspondence with un-named as well as named individuals, it isn't as simple as searching for particular names in the email headers. Also, we would likely have printed hard copies of some correspondence prior to deleting it. The request presumably covers any such hard copies, but again I don't think that they would be filed in a single "IPCC" file, so searching amongst hundreds of other documents would be onerous. (c) The impact on us (Keith and Tim) of carrying out such a search and collation would undoubtedly fall on our research output, probably writing papers for publication. This is a key metric by which university research is assessed (via RAE and forthcoming REF) and ultimately influences university funding from HEFCE. We have certain duties (teaching, assessment, advising, supervising research students, supervising research assistants, writing contract reports and proposals to funding agencies) that have strict deadlines that cannot simply be ignored when other demands (such as this FOIA/EIR request) arise. The time that we can actually spend on doing -- and particularly writing up -- research is a relatively small fraction of our time, and the time spent dealing with this FOIA/EIR request would consequently be a relatively large fraction of that time, and hence reduce our published output. (3) Section 4 of your document E asks whether we are weakening the argument that it is manifestly unreasonable if we indicate that we've already done the search and determined that we don't hold some of the information. Two comments here: (a) In the list shown in document C1, I have listed "we don't hold any correspondence with this person" against a few people. I should point out that this is on the basis of my recollection, from talking to Keith, and the fact that those people did not contribute to the section of chapter 6 that Keith and I worked on. Sorry, I should have been clearer before that we did not actually make a search to determine this. You might, therefore, wish to add that it is "likely" that we don't hold any correspondence with those people? (b) Given that the ICO have requested all the information that is the subject of the FOIA/EIR request, and that your letter indicates that we will eventually assemble it all rather than just the sample that we're currently sending, it would seem unfair if the ICO then ruled that we should now release it simply because they've forced us to do the work anyway! Best wishes Tim At 13:52 24/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Gents, >I promised this to Jonathan by the end of this week and here it >is! This is a multi-part document due to the nature of the request >for information by the ICO. The covering letter sets out what we >are providing the following documents follow (I hope) the >pattern/index set within that letter. > >There are some personal comments and questions within some of the >documents that I would ask for input on, and there are 'missing' >bits where I have not included a .pdf document for example but I >have added them to this email. I have also added the original >request to remind us of what we are responding to! > >Phil - Could you please vet in particular my references to the IPCC >process within the EIR exception document for accuracy? > >Tim - I need electronic copies of the emails from Jean Jouzel of >12/05/08, Olga Salomina of 13/05/08 and Caspar Ammann of 30/05/08 - >I think we can add this to cumulative .pdf document you prepared at that time. > >I expect that there will be changes of content and emphasis on this >but would hope that this is a successful first draft of our >submission. The Schedule, in particular, needs some work but I >thought it best to get the 'meat' of the submission to you as soon as possible. > >Cheers, Dave > > ><> <EIR_explanation.doc>> <> ><> ><> <A_Info_Schedule.xls>> <responses.pdf>> <> ><> > >____________________________ >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 > > > > > > > > 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