The Globalive ownership Decision from the CRTC may have an error.
Frequently, the expression ‘regulatory symmetry’ refers to the even handed application of regulations across various technologies or industries.
In today’s context, I use the expression in its literary sense.
Last Thursday’s CRTC Decision that reviewed Globalive’s ownership was complex: 119 paragraphs, organized under about a dozen level 1 headings and a few of those sections had sub-sections.
It is a well organized and readable piece – and for those who are willing to take the time, the decision lays out the difficult arguments and issues that were considered by the Commission in reaching its conclusion.
The literary symmetry that I want to refer to is in paragraph 115 of the Decision. The language in the decision reads:
Globalive has made numerous significant changes to its corporate structure and documents in order to address many of the Commission’s concerns. In this decision, the Commission has identified additional changes that are necessary to address certain remaining concerns with respect to Orascom’s influence over Globalive. These changes relate to the composition of the boards of directors, liquidity rights, and the threshold for veto rights.
However, if you look through the body of the Decision, you will see that the term “should” shows up in paragraphs 45, 64 and 72. These are the final paragraphs in sub-sections titled: “Composition of the boards of directors”; “Eligible Purchasers”; and, “Veto rights”.
Contrast these three items with the last sentence in paragraph 115. That paragraph, quoted above, indeed refers to 3 changes being necessary, but the second item listed in paragraph 115 says “liquidity rights”, not “eligible purchasers”.
In fact, there is a section called “liquidity rights”, but paragraph 59 in that section simply observes that this is an “an indication of Orascom’s influence” without suggesting that a remedy is required (such as the use of the word “should” which appears in the other paragraphs). As such, the last sentence in paragraph 115 appears to have had a literary asymmetry – a dissonance that doesn’t align the concluding paragraphs with the body of the decision.
This is what leads me to believe that an erratum is needed to clarifies the summary and restores a kind of talmudic balance.
Like straightening out a painting on a wall – did that dissonance bother anyone else?
More importantly, does that dissonance lead to confusion on what is required of Globalive to cure the CRTC’s foreign control concerns?