The requests received were supported by a number of reasons including that the Conceptual Framework ED is a long and complex document that will have a fundamental impact on the future of IASB standard-setting.

The Assistant Technical Manager then asked whether the IASB agreed with the proposal to extend the comment period deadline.

An IASB member agreed with the proposal but suggested a greater extension in light of an awareness that some respondents had responded stating would still not be able to respond by the proposed extension date and would need an additional 60 days (rather than 30).

The Assistant Technical Manager responded to this comment by reiterating that the original comment period was longer than normal before any proposed extension thereto.

The IASB member then stated that any comments received after the deadline would not be disregarded and so proposed that, in order to be more realistic, that the deadline was extended by more than the proposed 30 days.

Another IASB member stated that she did not object to an extension, but reiterated that the original comment period was already longer than normal in light of all the reasons for the proposed extension. She recommended that if the deadline was extended that the reason provided to support this should be the importance of the Conceptual Framework document and that this extension should not set a precedent.

Another IASB member stated that she would be comfortable with a 30 day extension but not a 60 day extension.

An IASB member stated that given the complexity and interrelatedness of the Conceptual Framework with relevant standards, respondents in regions that would need to wait for a translated version of the document would have benefited from the comment period being set at 180 days originally. He therefore agreed that the extension should be at least 30 days and would consider an additional number of days, too.

Another IASB member stated that he would not be against a 60 day extension.

The Vice-Chairmen called a vote based on the staff’s original proposal (i.e. an extension of 30 days to the comment period) and eleven members voted in favour of the proposal.