Chatham House hosted the International Institute of Communications annual conference earlier this week. Some of you will have noticed the advert lurking on the left hand side of our site for the past few weeks.

I didn’t get to attend as much of the event as I would have liked, although another Ofcomwatcher was also present so maybe he’ll provide further insight.

It was a great line up of speakers although I only got to hear - Lord David Currie and Rt Hon. Alun Michael, MP - who both kicked off the Monday and the Tuesday morning sessions respectively.

Currie’s speech was a bit of a sales pitch - there were plenty of senior folks present from regulatory authorities from around the world who may be looking to model new regulatory processes on those implemented by Ofcom. Maybe Currie could be an advisor if he isn’t able to persuade DTI and DCMS to extend his contract beyond 2007? His speech isn’t on the Ofcom site yet - but not really sure it’s worth look even when it is. His response to questions was much more lively (more on that below).

Alun Michael is a real stickler for detail. I noticed him take a pen out of his pocket during his presentation and correct what must have been typo in his speaking notes - hardly missing a beat. But this focus on details might be good for the industry since his speech suggested that he had developed a pretty good insight into key regulatory and policy issues both in the UK and Europe in the short time since his appointment after the election. He was animated and enthusiastic, although said little that was new. Still, full marks for effort. His speech is here.

Perhaps the problem with a Chatham House event - from a media perspective - is that everything of real interest is off the record under the Chatham Rule. So I would like to tell you about Lord Currie’s responses to questions regarding the TWF Directive - which weren’t that sensational by any means - but still feel constrained by the rule.

This rule probably does mean that delegates get some nice inside insight from the sessions but it doesn’t really help anyone on the end of report like this one. Apologies. Maybe a debate is needed about whether the Chatham House rule inhibits wider debate - of course I would suggest this occurs under the Chatham House rule!