This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version. Please upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

Due Process Oversight Committee

Date recorded:

David Sidwell reported on the work of his Committee, noting that an extensive meeting had been held on 11 January at which several Trustees who were not formal members of the Committee attended.

Much of his report focused on the approach to post-implementation reviews. He noted that the first of these, on IFRS 8 was about to begin. The DPOC was adopting a 'flexible approach' that would allow it to 'learn as we go'. The IASB Chair and senior staff had been asked to take a bit more time to develop a project plan and accompanying process for the reviews. He noted that the US Financial Accounting Foundation was also initiating post-implementation reviews of its Operating Segments standard. Unlike the IFRS approach, in which the IASB undertakes the review with the active oversight of the DPOC, the FAF itself will conduct the post-implementation review. The two oversight bodies will exchange information and experience as the respective reviews progress.

The review of the Interpretations Committee was also addressed. Mr Sidwell was disappointed that the review, initiated in October 2010 had not been concluded, but noted that having a Chairman who was a full-time member of the staff should help to conclude the review more quickly. The review of the Interpretations Committee had concluded that there should be more interaction between the Committee and the IASB. A particularly troublesome issue was managing the boundary between Interpretations and Annual Improvements, and the perennial problem of the rigor and status of Agenda Decisions. The IASB would receive a report in February [i.e., after the January 2012 Interpretations Committee meeting] and the DPOC and Trustees would review the matter at their April 2012 meetings.

The DPOC also reviewed correspondence with constituents. At the moment, the Committee responds to individual issues as they arise. Mr Sidwell thought that it was too early to identify themes in the letters it receives. The DPOC wants to add greater transparency to such correspondence by having letters it receives available immediately on its Website.

The DPOC is developing protocols that would apply in the event that there is a disagreement over process between the IASB and the DPOC. Part of the is protocol would be a clear statement that a 'de minimus' departure from due process would not lead to a presumption that due process had not been followed. Due Process was made of many procedures that needed to be assessed in their entirety.

Finally, members of the DPOC would be attending sessions of the Advisory Council (February 2012) and Interpretations Committee (July 2012) to see first-hand how these two bodies operate and contribute to the IFRS Foundation's work.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr Sidwell noted that the Monitoring Board had access to the reports of the DPOC (these are on the DPOC's Webpage) and at each meeting of the Monitoring Board, he makes a report of the Committee's activities.