Attachments omitted from FOI_11-48

Dear University of East Anglia,

Attachments omitted from FOI_11-48

On 30 March 2011, in response to FOI_11-048 you released in
Appendix A Correspondence.zip, an undated email from Prof Briffa to
Profs Overpeck and Jansen with the subject “urgent request”. It
included the text:

“The attached file documents one of a series of
allegations/questions that we have been asked to answer. We are
forwarding it in confidence (thus please do not circulate further
nor retain it unnecessarily) because we would value your input in
responding to this allegation.”

[1] Please tell me the date of the email
[2] Please give me a copy of “the attached file”

In the same Appendix A you also released an email dated 26 February
2010 from the IPCC WGI TSU to which had been attached a files
referred to as
“c:\Eudora\attach\Letter_WG1AR4Authors_2602210.pdf

[3] Please give me a copy of the attached file.
[4] Please indicate the status of individual whose name you
redacted, if it is one of the individuals who appears at
https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/organizati...

On 30 December 2009 I sent by email two files to the Information
Commissioner's Office, "DH Exhibits.zip" and "ICO Statement.doc". I
subsequently received a request from the the ICO to permit it to
give UEA a copy.

[5] Please let me know if you did receive either or both files and
if so on what date and who at UEA were given access to it.

Yours faithfully,

David Holland

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
Your Ref: FOI_11-097; EIR_11-009

Dear Mr Palmer

I am writing to request an internal review of University of East
Anglia's handling of my FOI request 'Attachments omitted from
FOI_11-48'.

Pursuant to Regulation 11(2) of the EIR I wish to you review your
decision not to disclose information in respect of items [3] and
[4] of my request of 7 May 2011, namely the attachment,
c:\Eudora\attach\Letter_WG1AR4Authors_2602210.pdf, and the status
of individual whose name that you redacted, from the IPCC WGI TSU
email of 26 February 2010, if it is one of the individuals who
appears at:
https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/organizati...

Since 1993 the IPCC had been required by its member governments to
undertake is assessment work on an open and transparent basis and
the regulation 12(5)(a) suggestion that the IPCC being open and
transparent would have an adverse effect on international relations
with the same member governments seems rather absurd. Likewise the
regulation 12(5)(f) suggestion, that being open and transparent as
the rules require could have adverse effects on
person providing information, also seems absurd.

The IPCC assessment process is one the most globally important
environmental decision-making processes, if not the most. The
global public interest in disclosure far outweighs far outweighs
the interests of any individual who in any case compete to be
involved because of the prestige it brings.

As for regulations 12(3) & 13(1), personal information, all IPCC
participants are more than happy to be named, photographed and
associated with IPCC work when it suits them and it is well
established in case law that the disclosure of name alone is rarely
sufficient to breach the Data Protection Act.

Yours sincerely,

David Holland