Dise˜ no de PON bidireccional con 4 ONTs

a. Overview of Objectivity

As stated above, under the IFRS Foundation’s Constitution, all IASB members are required to meet appropriate guidelines of independence established by the Trustees.337 Full- time members are required to sever all employment relationships and positions that may give rise to economic incentives that might call into question a member’s independence of judgment in setting financial reporting standards.338 Although the IFRS Foundation’s Constitution allows for up to three IASB members to be part-time members,339 who are not required to sever all other employment arrangements, there are currently no part-time IASB members. Under the IFRS Foundation’s Constitution, each IASB member must agree contractually to act in the public interest and to give regard to the IASB’s conceptual framework in deciding on and revising standards.340

As stated above, the DP Handbook details procedures to be followed by the IASB when setting standards, with an emphasis on how each stage of the process must address transparency and accessibility, extensive consultation and responsiveness, and accountability.341 To fulfill its transparency and accessibility requirements under the DP Handbook, the IASB gathers input from constituents, through various means, and consults with various groups and organizations.342 Additionally, the IASB makes a variety of materials available to the public.343 To fulfill its requirements for extensive consultation and responsiveness, the DP Handbook notes that the IASB solicits views and suggestions from a wide range of interested parties.344 The IASB may also arrange public hearings and field visits and set up working groups to promote discussions.345 The IASB debates different views on technical matters in public meetings and considers

alternatives to its proposals.346 As part of its feedback process, the IASB staff summarizes and analyzes comments received from the public, and the IASB provides project summaries and feedback statements to inform the public of its positions on major points raised in the comment letters.347 With respect to accountability, the DP Handbook notes that the IASB explains to the Trustees its reasons for omitting any non-mandatory steps in its consultative process.348 As

337

See subsection III.E.4., above.

338

See IFRS Foundation Constitution.

339

See id.

340

See id.

341

See subsection III.B., above.

342 See DP Handbook. 343 See id. 344 See id. 345 See id. 346 See id. 347 See id. 348 See id.

explained earlier, the Trustees review and ensure compliance with the IASB’s procedures and mandate, primarily through the DPOC.349

b. Enhancements to the IASB’s Process

In the Strategy Review Final Report, the Trustees stated that:

A thorough and transparent due process is essential to developing high quality, globally accepted accounting standards. The IASB’s due process should continue to be reviewed and regularly enhanced, benefiting from regular benchmarking against other organizations and from stakeholder advice.350

The Trustees noted that a benchmarking exercise is currently under way.351 Respondents to the 2011 Public Consultation agreed that the IASB’s process should be benchmarked against other similar organizations to ensure the IASB’s due process is in accordance with best

practice.352

Additional feedback about due process was gathered during the MB Governance Review. Most respondents to the MB Consultative Report expressed the view that the IASB’s processes allow for appropriate stakeholder involvement.353 Some respondents made suggestions for improving stakeholder engagement in the standard-setting process, including allowing for more time in projects for stakeholder input and for the IASB to assess input received, and managing the pace of standard setting to correspond to what stakeholders can reasonably absorb.354 Other suggestions included more regular agenda consultation, increased outreach activities, increased use of field testing, and increased participation of investors.355 Additionally, some respondents suggested that the IASB undertake impact assessments at an earlier stage in projects.356

In the Strategy Review Final Report, the Trustees acknowledged that critics of the IASB have argued that the IASB does not account adequately for the views expressed by stakeholders, nor does it sufficiently explain how it reconciles differing viewpoints.357 The Trustees noted that they and the IASB have taken steps to address these concerns, including the IASB making greater use of working groups, publishing feedback statements and effect analyses, and greatly expanding its outreach efforts.358 Additionally, the Trustees noted that they have expanded their

349

See subsection III.E.3.a., above.

350

Strategy Review Final Report.

351

See id.

352

See IFRS Foundation Staff Comment Summary.

353

See MB Comment Summary.

354 See id. 355 See id. 356 See id. 357

See Strategy Review Final Report.

358

oversight function and have changed the composition of the IFRS Advisory Council to reflect better the views of stakeholder groups.359 The Strategy Review Final Report also outlines efforts to build on and make improvements to the IASB’s existing due process framework, including in the areas of agenda setting, methodology for field visits and tests and effect analyses, and formal cooperation agreements with securities regulators, audit regulators, and national standard setters to receive feedback on IFRS implementation.360

Through various channels, the Staff received feedback from commenters that have expressed concerns that the IASB’s objectivity could be undermined via outside political influence.361 The Staff notes that, as discussed above, the MB Governance Review seeks to strike a balance between public accountability and the potential loss of standard-setter independence through too robust an involvement by external or political forces, and that the proposed enhancements to the funding, also as discussed above, can help the IASB’s

independence. The Staff notes that this tension is not unique to the IASB; constant vigilance is needed to protect the FASB against political interference in its standard-setting process. Broadening the scope of countries that use IFRS in addition to the United States using an

endorsement mechanism to ensure a strong U.S. voice in the standard-setting process may act as a useful counterweight to ensure that no one country would be able to impose its political will on the IASB.362

6. Observations on IASB’s Standard-Setting Process