Skip to content

A tale of three committees

Some relevant things from parliamentary committees for your attention and/or interest are set out below. No connection between them other than in my confused mind.

An offer you can’t (or shouldn’t) refuse:

The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee is issuing an open call for topics suitable for an oral evidence hearing in Westminster in April or May this year.

Cutely, you have to send a 750-word statement with your topic, suggested speakers, etc. More here at parliament.uk.

Australia’s parliament is up and running again for 2009, and the first international treaty that its Joint Standing Committee on Treaties gets to play with is the UNESCO Cultural Diversity Convention. There’s a very interesting report on Australia’s accession prepared for the committee here.

And one for the future : the (US) Senate Committee on Commerce has a new (well, restored) subcommittee, the Communications and Technology Subcommittee. Chaired by John Kerry (‘not the media’s top pick for oversight of their industry‘), and with an interesting mandate. More filled in by CQ here. Chris Marsden calls it the committee for ‘broadband, net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine‘. Bring it on…

Posted in Posts.

Tagged with , , , .

1 comment

By Daithí – February 17, 2009

One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

Continuing the Discussion

  1. cearta.ie » Who will keep the keepers? II linked to this post on February 27, 2009

    [...] If internet search is just as important as the mail, the radio spectrum and telecommunications standards, then the analogy with the UPU and the ITU is a strong one. It would be stretching things to say that internet search is already within the remit of the ITU, and if it does not acquire this competence, then the involvement of the UN Educational Social and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in matters relating to communication and information means that UNESCO has the potential to play this role. However, rather than a top-down approach, a strategy more likely to be successful is a bottom-up approach where an organisation evolves organically to meet real international structural needs, much as the ITU and the UPU did. Of course, the ITU and/or UNESCO might very well foster such a development, perhaps via the establishment of local regulators such as the proposed FSC, and then via regional agreements under the auspices of organisations such as the European Union (EU, for various reasons). Either way, there are deep issues of global governance here, and I wouldn’t bet on 200 odd countries and the multiplicity of overlapping regional organisations coming to this kind of agreement any time soon. Admittedly, therefore, the analogy with the ITU and the UPU is a utopian one; but that should not preclude it from being considered, to say nothing of its being an ultimate goal towards which policy-makers might be directed. [...]



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.

« »