• International Organization of Securities Commission (IOSCO):
  • Emerging Markets Committee: Guillermo Larain
  • Technical Committee: Hans Hoogervorst
• European Commission: Charlie McCreevy, Commissioner for Internal Market and Services
• Financial Services Agency (Japan): Junichi Maruyama, Deputy Commissioner for International Affairs
• US Securities and Exchange Commission: Mary Schapiro, Chairman
• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision [Observer]: Sylvie Matherat (Banque de France), Chair, Accounting Task Force

Mr McCreevy noted that the financial crisis had highlighted the necessity of removing 'regulatory arbitrage' through co-operation among securities regulators. Ms Schapiro stated that the SEC remained committed to the independence of financial reporting standard-setting and to the investor focus of financial reporting. In addition, as far as the capital markets were concerned, she supported the pre-eminence of investors' needs. A single set of high-quality financial reporting standards was part of that commitment, and the SEC remained committed to the goal of international convergence.

The IASCF Vice-Chairman pleaded with the Monitoring Board that they continue the apolitical nature of the Trustees: in his view, the dedication and impartiality of the Trustees had served the organisation well for the past eight years and was something worthy of preserving.

Trustees' Oversight Activities in 2008 and Priorities for 2009

Antonio Vegezzi, Chair of the Trustees' Due Process Oversight Committee, presented a review of the activities of the committee for 2008 and their priorities for 2009. He noted that the due process of the IASB was an area of concern for all the Trustees, and that the meetings of the committee were not restricted to members of the committee. The meetings and minutes are not made public, but reports of the activities of the committee are discussed with the Trustees in open session.

Members of the Monitoring Board questioned the suspension of due process in October 2008. Mr Vegezzi stated that the decision was taken by the Trustees as a whole, unanimously and after intense discussion. It was not something that was done lightly.

Sam DiPiazza noted that the Trustees took the due process of the organisation very seriously and that the due process of the IASB was 'far beyond' that of the US Financial Accounting Foundation and the FASB. He stated that 'due process is at the heart of everything that the Trustees do'.

IASC Foundation Financial Position

David Sidwell, Chairman of the Trustees' Audit Committee, reviewed the financial statements of the IASB, which had been approved at a meeting of the Audit Committee on 31 March 2009 and the audit report signed.

Looking forward, Mr McCreevy noted that the European Union would be providing funds from the main budget for the years 2011-2013, subject to the final approval of the Commission's recommendation, which was expected by the end of the current EU Parliamentary session. There was a general discussion of funding, but little beyond general support for the approach being developed by the Trustees.

Funding and Requirements for the IASC Foundation

Miranda Corti, IASCF Director of Finance and Resources, made a presentation of the IASCF's expected resource requirements over the next five years. To meet the IASCF's objective of establishing IFRS as the global standards for financial reporting, staff resources would need to rise from 110 now to 140 by 2013, with an expense budget of about £23 million. A short discussion followed.

Proposed Trustee Nomination Process for 2009

The Monitoring Board was informed that the Trustees were likely to recommend the re-appointment of the following Trustees whose terms expire in 2009 and who are eligible for reappointment and have indicated a willingness to continue: David Sidwell, Paul Tellier, Jeff van Rooyen, and Luigi Spaventa. Two Trustees must retire (Phil Laskawy and Bertrand Collomb), and the process of advertising for their replacements would begin in April 2009. In particular, the proposed process was:

• April 2009: the Trustees should advertise for a minimum of two positions (the two members who are term-limited) and specifically invite nominations from Europe and North America. The advertisement will be released in early April in the Economist and provide six weeks for nominations.
• April and May 2009: the Trustees will provide the opportunity for the Monitoring Board to put forward candidates for consideration by the Trustees during the period of advertisement. Simultaneously, the Trustees will write to relevant stakeholder groups, particularly from the investor, preparer, and official communities, to seek nominations.
• June 2009: the Nominating Committee will develop a possible shortlist of candidates, based upon the input received from the Monitoring Board and other parties, and will conduct background research where appropriate.
• July 2009: At the Trustees' meeting, the Nominating Committee will present a recommendation to the full Trustees' meeting. Once supported by the Trustees, the Trustees would formally present nominations to the Monitoring Board for consideration. The process should be complete by September 2009.

There were no particular comments from members of the Monitoring Board on the proposed approach. However, Mr McCreevy noted that he would be consulting his European colleagues, including the EU Parliament and Member States. This comment was clearly unexpected and caused a great deal of concern, especially among Trustees. One Trustee asked whether there were other areas of the Monitoring Board's mandate that were subject to the review of the EU Parliament. Another asked whether what the Commissioner was referring to was 'consultation' or 'consent'. Mr McCreevy subsequently clarified his remarks by saying that his discussions would be informal consultations and would be restricted to EU candidates. He hoped that there would be a consensus around any candidate, but in the absence of such a consensus, the decision would rest with the Commissioner.

IFRS Adoption in Emerging Markets

Guillermo Larrain (IOSCO Emerging Markets Committee) briefed the Monitoring Board and Trustees of the results of a survey about the implementation of IFRS in emerging markets [not emerging economies]. He noted in particular that Brazil had decided to adopt (not adapt) IFRS, which was a significant move.

Sam DiPiazza observed that, in his experience, the training being undertaken in South America was impressive and that the capacity to support IFRS was already good and getting better. In addition, he had seen that principles-based judgements were 'just as robust' in emerging markets as they were in developed ones.

Response to the Financial Crisis

Sir David Tweedie introduced the IASB's responses to the financial crisis and explained in broad terms some of the issues being addressed by the IASB (most of them jointly with FASB). He stressed that this meeting should not get into technical details, but should address process issues only.

Ms Matherat (Basel Committee) stressed Basel's commitment to working with the IASB towards the 'more timely recognition of losses'. In addition, there was a need to have an audit trail from internal reporting to external financial reporting to prudential filings, but she did not elaborate what this might be.

Participants expressed various views on aspects of providing for losses in financial statements and encouraged the IASB to have an open mind as they explored the alternatives. In addition, bank regulators were encouraged to tighten the requirements about what could be distributed by banks.

A Trustee noted that it was not the loss provisioning model that had saved banks in some jurisdictions; it was the regulator actively preventing them from investing in certain asset classes that had saved them. Sir David agreed, noting that regulatory capital had been too low to cover 'unexpected' losses. Ms Matherat noted that, in her view, loan loss provisions were there to provide for expected losses; and capital provided the cushion against unexpected losses. Both had proved inadequate in the current financial crisis.

Closing the debate, Sir David outlined the IASB's proposals for replacing IAS 39, to which there was general agreement. Although welcoming the intent to replace IAS 39 'in months, not years' (Sir David's words), Mr McCreevy observed that the IASB had yet to give the Commission Services an adequate response to their letter sent in late October 2008. Sir David noted that this letter had been discussed with a broad range of constituents, and the IASB had received a strong message that the items in that letter were not imperative when compared to fixing IAS 39 as a whole. Mr McCreevy and Sir David 'agreed to differ' on this point.

This summary is based on notes taken by observers at the Joint Monitoring Board and IASCF Trustees meeting and should not be regarded as an official or final summary.

IASB's response to the financial crisis

Sir David Tweedie outlined the IASB's activities in response to the financial crisis, in particular the current status of the financial instruments project and the IASB's efforts to find an acceptable and robust replacement for IAS 39. In particular, he outlined the IASB's conclusions in the forthcoming exposure draft on the classification of financial instruments. He noted that the IASB had been asked by some constituents to adopt certain requirements in US GAAP with respect to impairment. The IASB had concluded that, were they to do so, greater complexity would have been introduced to an already complex standard. The IASB had therefore decided that it should simplify the classification of financial instruments to two categories (fair value and amortised cost) and the impairment approach to one (impairment would be triggered by a deterioration in credit standing). The IASB was working closely with the FASB, but the two were currently in different places. As a result, it was likely that the IASB and the FASB would expose each other's potential solutions and invite comments from constituents. Alternatives to the IASB approach likely to be included in the IASB's exposure draft as alternatives are that debt instruments traded in an active market would be measured at fair value in all cases; and a fair value option for all financial assets.

The EU Commissioner for Internal Markets noted that he was increasingly of the view that for financial institutions, accounting and financial reporting should be more biased towards the needs of prudential regulators than the investor. Responding immediately to this comment, the IASCF Chairman, Gerrit Zalm, noted that the banking industry representatives on the IASB's Standards Advisory Council meeting in June 2009 had expressed exactly the opposite view.

Other participants urged the IASB and the FASB to work as hard as possible to achieve a common position on this critical project.

Hans Hoogervorst, who is also a Co-Chairman of the FASB/IASB Financial Crisis Advisory Group, gave an overview of the FCAG's final report, which is due to be completed in July 2009. He noted that the report was likely to stress four fundamental principles and make recommendations in support of those principles. These principles were likely to be:

• Financial reporting plays an integral role in the financial system by providing unbiased, transparent information about the economic performance and condition of businesses. It assists in resource allocation decisions by investors and provides important information to prudential regulators and others. However, reporting to investors should have primacy and when regulatory requirements differ from financial reporting requirements the effects should be displayed in a manner that does not compromise the transparency and integrity of financial reporting.
• Financial reporting is but one of the information inputs available to financial markets. All users should recognize the limitations of financial reporting. There should be better and more rigorous processes for price verification and asset valuation.
• The global nature of the financial markets makes it critical to achieve a single set of high quality, globally converged financial reporting standards that provide consistent, unbiased and transparent information, regardless of the geographical location of the reporting entity.
• To develop standards that are high quality and unbiased, accounting standard-setters must enjoy a high degree of independence from undue commercial and political pressures, but must also have a high degree of accountability through appropriate due process and oversight ('no independence without accountability; no accountability without independence').

There was no substantive discussion of this matter.

IASCF Constitution review

The IASCF Chairman noted the following developments:

The Standards Advisory Council now has dedicated staff to assist it in discharging its role in the organisation.

As a result of the consultation with constituents about issues to be included in the IASCF Constitution Review, the Trustees are likely to propose the following:

• Re-branding: that the name of the organisation be changed from the IASC Foundation to the IFRS Foundation; and that the IASB be renamed the International Financial Reporting Standards Board.
• Consultation: that the Constitution be explicit that the IASB may and should consult with those bodies with a legitimate interest in financial reporting standards (not national standard-setters alone).
• Monitoring Board: the position of the Monitoring Board in the governance structure of the organisation will be acknowledged in paragraph 3 of the Constitution.
• Trustees: there will be specific mention of Africa and South America in the geographical distribution requirements for Trustees; the Constitution should provide for at least two vice-chairmen.
• 'Fast track' agenda items: the Trustees are to be consulted in the 'rare circumstances' in which the IASB is considering having an exposure period of less than 30 days (the shortest period permitted by the Constitution).
• IASB: there should be two vice-chairmen of the IASB; terms should be set at an initial term of 5 years renewable once for a further 3 years, unless the member is a potential chairman or vice-chairman, in which case the renewal would be for a further 5 years.
• IASB agenda setting: the required consultation with the IASCF Trustees and the SAC remain, decisions remaining with the IASB absolutely. However, comments from constituents would be invited during this period (the agenda candidates and relative priorities are in publicly-available documents). However, it is likely that the onus would be on constituents to respond to these documents and they would not be the subject of a formal request for views. In this way, the Trustees were trying to balance the openness of the agenda-setting process without making it too bureaucratic.

Funding the IASCF

The IASCF staff noted that in April 2009 they had presented to the Monitoring Board a draft five-year plan that outlined resource requirements for the IASCF. As a result of further work on this budget, it is apparent that the IASCF could be in an operating deficit from FY 2010 based on current funding commitments (this assumes that the national schemes in EU Member States ceases once the central budget commitment comes on stream in FY 2011 and that the voluntary contributions from the major accounting networks and central banks is also discontinued).

An IASCF Trustee noted that the funding shortfall had the potential to put in jeopardy the extensive discretionary due process activities that the IASB was following: were these to be curtailed, the organisation would attract criticism, probably from those jurisdictions that had contributed to the funding shortfall! The European Commissioner for Internal Markets noted that the presence of a central EU budget allocation for the IASCF did not preclude Member States from continuing national contribution schemes. The EU funding started in 2011 and the number in the presentation ($4.4m) was only indicative but about right. However, it was subject to review on an annual basis as part of the EU's budget-setting process. In response to a question, the Commissioner noted that governance issues were at the heart of the concerns at the ECOFIN and the European Parliament.

The Chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission acknowledged that the voluntary contribution system was not working in the US. The SEC was working to achieve a solution that was fair and stable and avoided a Congressional budget line item. It was likely that this would be a levy system on listed companies, but this was still being worked out. The introduction of a stable, independent funding regime for the US was a priority for her.

There was a brief discussion of the IASCF's budget and programme spending requirements, but little new came to light.

IOSCO and regulatory developments

The representative of the Japanese Financial Services Agency noted that the FSA recently had adopted a roadmap for the adoption of IFRS in Japan. Issuers would be permitted to use IFRS for fiscal years ending on or after 31 March 2010. A decision on mandatory adoption would be made in 2012. In the meantime, there was also a convergence programme in place between the IASB and the ASBJ, which should be completed by 2011. It was hoped that this two-pronged approach would mean that the transition to IFRS would be relatively easy in Japan.

The SEC Chairman noted that the SEC had received about 220 comment letters on its IFRS Roadmap - a large proportion of these were from issuers; with users, the accounting profession and academics also well represented. A large proportion agreed that a single set of global financial reporting standards was desirable; there was less agreement that they should be IFRS. However, issuers with international operations were overwhelmingly in favour of IFRS. Areas of concern with respect to IFRS were regional/ national carve-ins and carve-outs. Many commentators had concerns that the proposed timeline for implementation was too short. The SEC Chairman noted that analysis of the comments was continuing and that the Commission would resume consideration of the Roadmap in 4Q 2009.

A Trustee asked whether the European Commission had signed the Monitoring Board's Memorandum of Understanding. The Commissioner replied that he had not yet been able to do so, but that the topic would be discussed when the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) was reconstituted later in July 2009 (after the new European Parliament convenes), and he hoped that as a result of these consultations and consultations with Parliament, that the MoU could be signed on behalf of the Commission.

In response to a question from the Trustees, the Monitoring Board Chairman noted that the MB had yet to agree any formal modus operandi with respect to the IASB. An IOSCO representative noted that he expected that IOSCO would operate as before: operational matters would be raised with the IASB in the normal manner. The MB was put in place to add strength and assurance at a governance level and that IOSCO would raise only policy and governance matters at the MB level.

The Chairman closed the public session.

This summary is based on notes taken by observers at the Joint Monitoring Board and IASCF Trustees meeting and should not be regarded as an official or final summary.

The meeting was relatively brief, taking just over an hour of the 2.5 hours allocated.

IASCF governance and independence

Michel Barnier, the European Internal markets Commissioner, reiterated the EC's support for IFRSs as the only realistic option for a single set of globally-accepted, high-quality financial reporting standards. However, there are continuing concerns in Europe over the governance of the IFRS Foundation and its accountability to public authorities and the IASB's engagement with investors and prudential supervisors. Mr Barnier was challenged on both points by the Foundation's Chairman, who noted that the Monitoring Board was put in place specifically to provide the engagement with public authorities, and its membership had been determined in consultation with the European Commission. In addition, in the past 12-18 months, the IASB had greatly expanded its outreach and investor/user engagement. Finally, on all major projects, the IASB would (as it had on IFRS 3) undertake impact assessments and produce feedback statements (summarising the results of the IASB's due process and redeliberations).

Consistency of application and enforcement

Mary Shapiro, Chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, noted that IOSCO was heavily involved in efforts to promote comparability and consistency of application and enforcement of IFRSs. It was, necessarily, an ongoing and iterative process. Her comments were supported by Mr Tanzer and Ethiopis Tafara (US SEC) who noted that IOSCO is sharing information among its members (including the Committee of European Securities Regulators in the EU). This information sharing was designed to identify enforcement issues and application problems, with the view to making more informed enforcement decisions. In addition, the US SEC had bilateral relations with a number of IFRS jurisdictions through which they exchanged information with the aim of avoiding contradictory enforcement positions.

The Chairman of the Japanese Financial Services Agency called for IFRIC to be more active, issue more Interpretations and be more specific about the reasons why it does not take items to its agenda.

IASCF funding

On funding for the IASCF, Mr Barnier noted that it was very important that all IFRS jurisdictions make 'realistic contributions' towards funding the IASCF. He agreed to enter into bilateral discussions with the IASCF Chairman on the level of EU funding, but noted that both the European Council and the European Parliament had to agree the budget and be satisfied that all conditions for EU funding had been met on an annual basis. Ms Shapiro stated that the SEC was working hard to find both short-term and long-term funding solutions for the US-based contributions to the IASB. She noted that financial independence is one of the SEC's milestones for accepting IFRSs for US domestic issuers, and the SEC recognises its own role in helping the IASCF to achieve that.

Post-2011 Strategic planning

The Monitoring Board will look at how it operates, how it exercises its oversight functions of the IASCF, and how it conducts its business generally. It felt that, until all members had signed the Memorandum of Understanding, it had been premature to do this exercise.

The greater demands of emerging and transition economies in the post-2011 activities of the IASB were noted, both by an IASB Trustee and by Greg Tanzer on behalf of IOSCO.

IASB stakeholder engagement

The Monitoring Board noted the enhanced outreach activities of the IASB in the past 12-18 months with approval and hoped that sufficient funding could be secured such that those efforts could be maintained or enhanced further.

This summary is based on notes taken by observers at the Monitoring Board meeting and should not be regarded as an official or final summary.

Monitoring Board Governance Review

Masamichi Kono (Japanese FSA), who is leading the Monitoring Board’s Governance Review working group reported that the group’s report is still in preparation and that final recommendations are now likely late in the third quarter or early fourth quarter 2011. He reported that the working group was assessing the input from 80 comment letters and comments received at four roundtable meetings with constituents. He gave highlights of the areas that had attracted most comment, but was unable to give any clear indications of what recommendations the working group would make. He reiterated the desire of the Monitoring Board to coordinate its final recommendations with those of the Trustees so that a comprehensive reform package could be presented.

That said, it is likely that the Monitoring Board will be expanded to include both long term and rotating seats and that the Basel Committee may be invited to be a voting member. Whether other non-capital market authorities would be invited is in the ‘still to be debated’ category.

There was general agreement that the Monitoring Board, acting in that capacity, should not have special access to the IASB in agenda-setting matters (although there was a minority that did support some enhanced role); nor should the Monitoring Board approve appointment of the IASB Chair. There was almost no support for the establishment of a permanent secretariat.

Robert Glauber (Interim Co-Chair of the IFRS Foundation) presented an oral report of the highlights of comments received on the Trustees’ Strategy Review Report. He noted that, while the comment period does not close until 25 July 2011, comment letters received to date and the results of six roundtables have indicated broad support for the Trustees’ proposals. In particular, there was strong support for developing a mission statement; for the focus on full adoption/ incorporation of IFRSs as issued by the IASB into national financial reporting systems; and for the three-tier governance structure. There was also strong support for the enhanced and intensified role of the Trustees’ Due Process Oversight Committee. Finally, there was widespread agreement on the direction of the funding model proposed.

Michel Barnier, EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, welcomed both reports – but commented especially on the Trustees’ Strategy Review Report. He noted that the European Parliament and Member States wanted a proper upgrading of the governance structure of the IFRS Foundation and the IASB. An enhanced due process that included effects analysis/ impact assessments was necessary. He stressed that Europe remained ‘committed to IFRS’.

In response to a question from Yves-Thibault de Silguy (IFRSF), Mr Kono said that the working group was not likely to suggest that membership of the Monitoring Board should be linked directly to the adoption of IFRSs by a given date, However, it was expected that Monitoring Board members demonstrate a level of commitment to such adoption.

IFRS Foundation Due Process Oversight Committee

David Sidwell, the DPOC Chairman, noted that the Committee was trying to do more rigorous and timely oversight, while maintaining a balance between oversight and impinging on the technical debate. The Committee has met monthly since April and publishes a précis of its discussions shortly after each meeting.

He noted that the Committee had been involved in and understood the reasons for the announcement on 14 April by the chairs of the IASB and FASB on the timing of delivery of the four major standard-setting projects. He also noted that the Committee had reviewed and cleared the due process that supported the recently-issued IFRSs (IFRSs 10-13, etc). A feedback statement, including an effects analysis on Joint Arrangements should be released on 14 July,

Looking forward, the DPOC has reviewed the planning for the post-implementation review of IFRS 8 Segment Reporting. This will be a test case for post-implementation reviews and the DPOC will seek to learn from it as it prepares subsequent post-implementation reviews.

Mr Sidwell noted that the Advisory Council and the Interpretations Committee are also in the DPOC’s sights as the Committee seeks to review the Council and the Interpretations Committee. He stated that the Advisory Council would be consulted explicitly on the forthcoming Agenda Consultation. The Council had already been pro-active in providing input to the IASB and the DPOC and the Council wanted this engagement to continue.

Hans Hoogervorst, IASB Chairman, made some comments on the major projects and on financial instruments in particular. He noted that the existing IAS 39/ FASB incurred loss model was not forward-looking enough and that IAS 39 was ‘too restrictive’. That said, even under IAS 39, impairment triggers [on sovereign debt] have been met, but the application of the Standard had been inconsistent. He explained that under IAS 39, most sovereign debt is classified as Available for Sale and that IAS 39 produces a ‘cliff effect’ when an impairment occurs. Under IFRS 9, sovereign debt could be measured at amortised cost. IFRS 9 has rigorous impairment rules that were just as rigorous as those in IAS 39, but IFRS 9 avoids the cliff effect in IAS 39.

Budget and Financing

Aki Fujinuma (IFRSF Interim Co-Chair) outlined that the IFRS Foundation was expecting to have a balanced budget in 2011 and noted new funding from Nigeria, Brazil and Korea. However, the ultimate independent funding regime was not yet in place.

M. Barnier expressed frustration that the Monitoring Board always had to come back to this issue, noting that the European Commission and the IFRS Foundation had signed a grant agreement for €4,250K for 2011, with similar amounts in 2012 and 2013. With additional voluntary contributions from other EU Member States, Europe’s contributions exceed what was expected. He suggested that there be a link between Monitoring Board membership and financial support for the Foundation.

The public session of the Monitoring Board concluded.

This summary is based on notes taken by observers at the Monitoring Board meeting and should not be regarded as an official or final summary.

IASB

• Many respondents agree (or partially agree) with the proposal to urge concrete efforts to deepen the pool of candidates for IASB membership
• Many respondents agree that the roles of the IASB Chair and CEO of the IFRS Foundation should be separate
• Many respondents agree that a clearer division of responsibility between staff dedicated to the IASB operations and staff dedicated to the Foundation's administrative and oversight functions should be considered

Trustees

• Some respondents believe the current constitutional requirements regarding Trustee composition are adequate, but others made many suggestions for improvement around geographical balance and professional backgrounds
• Many respondents agree with the proposal to provide increased transparency into the process for Trustee nominations, but many think the current arrangements for involvement of the Monitoring Board in the nomination process are appropriate
• A large majority of respondents agree that further clarification of the criteria for the Trustee's candidacy would help support confidence of stakeholders

Monitoring Board

• A larger majority of respondents agree with limiting the Monitoring Board membership to capital markets authorities
• Most respondents agree with expanding the Monitoring Board membership by adding a mix of permanent members (representing major emerging markets) and rotating members (from other markets)
• A majority of commenting respondents supported the selection of rotating members through IOSCO
• Most respondents agree the Monitoring Board should continue to make decisions by consensus
• While most respondents broadly support increased interaction between the Monitoring Board and other parties with a stake in IFRSs, views varied broadly as to how to achieve this
• A large majority of respondents generally support increased transparency into the Monitoring Board's functions and support the measures provided in the report as a means to increase visibility
• A large majority of respondents oppose the Monitoring Board's direct involvement in IASB agenda-setting with compulsory power - in general, those respondents say the current arrangement is absolutely appropriate and further involvement should be avoided in order not to damage the standard-setter's independence in terms of both substance and appearance
• Most respondents did not support the expansion of the Monitoring Board involvement in the nomination of the IASB Chair
• A large majority of respondents agree that the Monitoring Board's responsibilities should explicitly include consultation with the Trustees as they further develop the framework
• There were many views against the establishment of a permanent secretariat for the Monitoring Board

Other areas

• The majority of respondents believe the current arrangements for the standard-setting process adequately ensure the appropriate involvement of all relevant stakeholders and that all relevant public policy objectives are taken into account
• There is full agreement on establishing a more stable and independent funding model, and most respondents argue that improvement in the funding model is primarily a responsibility of the Trustees
• The majority of respondents agree with the need for regular reviews of the governance structure and in general, there should be alignment between future Monitoring Board governance reviews and the IFRS Foundation Constitution reviews