Sir David reported on the IASB's standard-setting activities. The Board (and the FASB) is focused on the 30 June 2011 target. However, he stressed that quality mattered more than deadlines and that if one project falls away, 'so be it'. He praised the IASB staff, who were working extremely diligently in very challenging circumstances, as the Boards continued to explore possible ways of convergence. He also noted that the forthcoming SEC decision on the use of IFRSs by US domestic issuers was predicated on achieving convergence on the items in the MoU.

He noted that several new or significantly revised IFRSs were due to be issued in April. Of the four remaining MoU/G20 agenda items, three were 'significantly advanced'. The financial instruments project was proving difficult to achieve convergence. He noted that, while the FASB had backed off its 'full fair value' model, it was developing a mixed measurement model that was different to that in IFRS 9. In particular, it would retain a classification similar to 'available for sale', with all of the associated problems, that IFRS 9 removed. He noted that, in common with all convergence agenda items on which the Boards were unable to agree on a common set of proposals, the IASB would expose the FASB solution for comment.

Other aspects of the financial instruments project were also proving challenging. He summarised the impairment proposals. Results from roundtables and early comment letters were mixed. He noted that the IASB were 'way ahead' on hedging (the FASB has not started deliberations) and that initial reactions to the IASB's exposure draft seem positive. On offsetting, the FASB was split but initial feedback suggests the IASB's constituents seem to support the Board's proposals.

Insurance was 'very tough', but he noted that the insurance industry was now actively engaged with the Boards and helping them come to robust but workable solutions. The FASB had signalled that it was determined to change US GAAP, which might have helped.

On effective dates, he noted that IFRS 10-13 and IAS 27R and IAS 28R would have effective dates of 1 January 2013. The remaining four MoU standards would probably have effective dates of 1 January 2015, to allow for the systems changes that might be necessary.

Paul Cherry was unable to attend in person. His report had been provided in the meeting papers and was tabled. Several Trustees noted that the increase in the level of attendance by Trustees at the Advisory Council meeting had led to much better dialogue with the Council. The Council had been particularly influential in the development of the Strategy Paper and continued to add value in other areas.

Trustees asked that there might be better coordination of Trustees' and Advisory Council meetings. It was noted that such coordination had been scheduled in October, when the Trustees could attend the first day of the Council, before travelling to France for the Trustees' meeting.

Jeff Lucy and Mike Wells (IFRSF staff) reviewed the IFRS Education Initiative Draft Plan 2012-2016. The plan was accepted without much debate.

David Sidwell, Chairman of the DPOC, gave an impressive report of the DPOC's activities. The intensity of the Committee's activities is evident, the level and quality of documentation has been enhanced significantly and the timing of the Committee's involvement is more appropriate.

The meeting was presented with the results of the Committee's assessment of due process surrounding IFRSs 10-12, IFRS 13, IASs 19R, 27R and 28R and amendments to IAS 1. These assessments noted all mandatory and non-mandatory steps that the IASB and the staff had undertaken and the results from them. Mr Sidwell noted that the documentation helped the Committee to ensure itself that it had reviewed the due process related to each IFRS in a disciplined, logical and consistent manner. The Committee had met the IASB on 16 March to discuss the matters on which the Committee was reporting and had satisfied itself in all areas. The Committee had concluded that the due process standards had been met and that the IFRSs noted above could be issued.

Mr Sidwell then went on to discuss the 'enhanced' due process assessment that was being put in place with effect from the 'big four' MoU/ G20 standards. The Committee was involved pro-actively throughout the re-deliberation process, corresponding regularly with Sir David Tweedie and Alan Teixeira, noting especially the activities being undertaken in areas in which the IASB needs to resolve differences (both with the FASB and its own constituents). Given the sensitivity of the final MoU/G20 projects, the Committee has asked for monthly meeting and updates on those projects.

Mr Sidwell noted that the Committee's revised approach to due process governance was based on a 'through the life cycle' approach. The Committee would be involved throughout the process and would review and report at regular intervals on each project. The Committee would report at least quarterly. The Committee would need to develop protocols and procedures, while acknowledging that the oversight of due process must continue to evolve.

The Committee is also engaged with the IASB as it prepared its Agenda Consultation document. Both the current Board leadership and the Committee had agreed that the incoming IASB leadership should have a say on the shape of the consultation. The Consultation will be issued after it is discussed with the Advisory Council in June and the Trustees in July 2011.

On the Committee's involvement with XBRL, the most important observations were that the IFRS Taxonomy needs to be less focused on 'IFRSs as issued' (as now) and more on developing a taxonomy that had more extensions and could be accepted world-wide without jurisdictional amendment/adaptation. This means that XBRL will need to be 'integrated into the standard-setting process' and that the development of tags/extensions will be integrated with (but distinguished from) the standard-setting activities. The Committee wanted to avoid multiple versions of the same taxonomy. At the same time, it would not help the global uptake of IFRSs if the IFRS Taxonomy was not accepted.

In a Q&A session that followed, Mr Sidwell noted that the IFRSF approach to post-implementation reviews was different to that being adopted by the US Financial Accounting Foundation. The FAF undertakes post-implementation reviews in the US. The IFRSF, on the other hand, sees such reviews as a technical activity best done by the IASB and subject to proper oversight by the Committee. Post-implementation reviews are designed to identify technical problems, best addressed by the IASB. This had been discussed with the Advisory Council, which agreed with the Committee's assessment. Trustees also agreed, noting that the reviews were 'a different work stream' in the standard-setting activities of the IASB.

Tom Seidenstein gave a summary of the comments received on the Trustees' strategy review consultation document. 94 comment letters had been received, many from Europe, but large tranches from other regions as well. Thus, the Trustees had a broad geographical basis on which to base its decisions on next steps.

There was strong support (80%+) for the current focus of the IASB's activities (investors in capital markets), although there was strong support for involving regulatory/ prudential interests explicitly during the IASB's due process.

The three-tier structure of governance was also supported very strongly, although the Trustees were encouraged to have a more visible role, especially in oversight matters, such that they are seen to be effective. The Monitoring Board (expanded as proposed separately by the Monitoring Board) was sufficient to support legitimacy, provided it operated within clearly defined roles. Due process was an area of particular comment – especially with respect to the Trustees' oversight. David Sidwell noted that the comments received had already shaped the Due Process Oversight Committee's work and approach. On funding, there was support for developing a long-term viable solution that was public, proportionate and flexible.

Overall, there was a high degree of consistency among the comments, and the Trustees should be able to prepare their reform proposals quickly.

Robert Glauber (one of the acting co-Chairmen) stated that the Trustees' reform proposals would be published in April, with a comment period of about 90 days. There would be roundtable meetings in Japan, Hong Kong, New York and London. The Trustees would discuss the results of the exposure at their meeting in July. The Trustees wish to coordinate the next stage of the process with the Monitoring Board. He noted also that, because some aspects of the Monitoring Board's structure and governance are embedded in the IFRS Foundation's Constitution, the results of the Monitoring Board's review would trigger a public consultation on amendments to the Constitution.