Welcome to the website of the IFRS Foundation and the IASB

Thursday 30 October 2014

Banner graphic

Rate-regulated Activities: Interim IFRS


 Due process steps

Stage 1: Exposure Draft

 

Step Required/
Optional
Metrics or
evidence
Evidence provided to DPOC
provided to DPOC
Actions
Board meetings held in public, with papers available for observers. All decisions are made in public session.

Required

Meetings held.

Project website contains a full description with up-to-date information.

Meeting papers posted in a timely fashion.

Members of the IASB have discussed with the DPOC the progress of the due process that is being conducted on major projects.

The DPOC has reviewed, when appropriate, the comments that have been received from interested parties on the due process that the IASB followed.

The IASB meetings discussing the development of the ED were held in public between September 2012 and February 2013. All decisions were made during those sessions.

The project website contains relevant historical information and was updated in a timely fashion for meeting papers and up to-date summaries of the decisions reached at the meetings.

Consultation with the Trustees and the Advisory Council.

Required

Discussions with the Advisory Council.

The DPOC has met with the Advisory Council to understand stakeholders’ perspectives.

The Advisory Council Chair is invited to Trustees’ meetings and meetings of the DPOC.

At the October 2012 Advisory Council meeting, this project was discussed (see January 2013 Agenda Paper 5F, paragraphs 7-9).

Consultative groups used, if formed.

Optional

Extent of consultative group meetings, and evidence of substantive involvement in issues.

Consultative group review of the draft ED.

The DPOC has received from the IASB a report of the activity of the consultative group.

The IASB, at its December 2012 meeting, decided that a formal consultative group was not needed for the ED but a group should be formed for the related research project. This group will be consulted in the analysis of the comments received and in the redeliberation of the ED proposals as well as in the development of the Discussion Paper.

Fieldwork is undertaken to analyse proposals.

Optional

The IASB has described publicly the approach taken on fieldwork.

The IASB has explained to the DPOC why it does not believe fieldwork is warranted, if that is the preferred path.

Extent of field tests taken.

If the IASB has deemed fieldwork to not be a requirement, the DPOC will have the opportunity to discuss and review the IASB’s explanation for its decision.

The DPOC has received a report of fieldwork activities and how findings have been taken into consideration by IASB.

We do not consider it necessary for separate fieldwork to be performed on the proposed requirements. The ED will propose limited amendments to existing accounting policies for rate regulated activities. Interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on these proposals.

Outreach meetings with a broad range of stakeholders, with special effort to consult investors.

Optional

Extent of meetings held.

Evidence of specific targeted efforts to consult investors.

The DPOC has received a report of outreach activities. The DPOC and the IASB have reviewed the outreach plan for the ED and its approach to the optional steps to ensure extensive outreach and public consultation.

The IASB conducted limited focused outreach to gather information needed to develop the proposed amendments. The IASB will undertake more extensive outreach during the comment period and redeliberations on the ED to consider the views of various groups of interested parties and individual jurisdictions.

Webcasts and podcasts to provide interested parties with high-level updates or other useful information about specific projects.

Optional

Extent of, and participation in, webcasts.

The DPOC has received a report of outreach activities.

The IFRS website contains up-to-date information on the Rate regulated Activities project pages. We do not think that it is necessary to provide webcasts or podcasts for this phase of the project.

Public discussions with representative groups.

Optional

Extent of discussions held.

The DPOC has received a report of outreach activities.

This project was discussed with the Capital Markets Advisory Committee and others. The IASB will undertake more extensive outreach during the comment period and redeliberations on the ED to consider the views of various groups of interested parties and individual jurisdictions.

Online survey to generate evidence in support of or against a particular approach.

Optional

Extent and results of surveys.

The DPOC has received a report of outreach activities.

An online survey was not considered necessary in order to develop these proposals.

The IASB hosts regional discussion forums, where possible, with national standard-setters.

Optional

Schedule of meetings held in these forums.

The DPOC has received a report of outreach activities.

Regional discussion forums were not considered necessary in order to develop these proposals.

Round-table meetings between external participants and members of the IASB.

Optional

Extent of meetings held.

The DPOC has received a report of outreach activities.

Round-table meetings were not considered necessary in order to develop these proposals.

Analysis of the likely effects of the forthcoming Standard or major amendment, for example, initial costs or ongoing associated costs.

Required

Publication of the Effect Analysis as part of the Basis for Conclusions.

The IASB has reviewed, with the DPOC, the results of the Effect Analysis and how it has considered such findings in the proposed Standard.

The IASB has provided a copy of the Effect Analysis to the DPOC at the point of the Standard’s publication.

The staff have analysed the likely effects of the proposals and have included the analysis in the Basis for Conclusions on the ED.

Finalisation:
Due process steps reviewed by the IASB.

Required

Summary of all due process steps discussed by the IASB before a Standard is issued.

The DPOC has received a summary report of the due process steps that have been followed before the Exposure Draft is issued.

The IASB considered the due process steps undertaken at its meeting in January 2013 (Agenda Paper 5F). Hard copies of this paper were given out at the DPOC meeting in January 2013.

The ED has an appropriate comment period.

Required

The period has been set by the IASB.

If outside the normal comment period, an explanation from the IASB to the DPOC has been provided, and the decision has been approved.

The DPOC has received notice of any change in the comment period length and has provided approval if required.

The ED was issued with a comment period of 132 days.

Drafting:
Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Required

The Translations team has been included in the review process.

The DPOC has received a summary report of the due process steps that have been followed before the ED is issued.

The Translations team has been included in the review process.

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Required

The XBRL team has been included in the review process.

The DPOC has received a summary report of the due process steps that have been followed before the ED is issued.

The XBRL team has been included in the review process at each drafting stage.

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Optional

The Editorial team has been included in the review process.

In addition, external reviewers are used to review drafts for editorial review and the comments collected are considered by the IASB.

The DPOC has received a summary report of the due process steps that have been followed before the ED is issued, including the extent to which external reviewers have been used in the drafting process.

The Editorial team has been included in the review process.

In addition, comments have been received from a total of 5 external reviewers. These comments were incorporated into the pre-ballot draft reviewed by the IASB.

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Optional

Drafts for editorial review have been made available to members of the International Forum of Accounting Standard-Setters (IFASS) and the comments have been collected and considered by the IASB.

The DPOC has received a summary report of the due process steps that have been followed before the Exposure Draft is issued.

Optional step not taken.

The ED relates to a very narrow scope and target audience so the drafts were sent to selected external reviewers with industry knowledge.

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Optional

Review draft has been posted on the project website.

The DPOC has received a summary report of the due process steps that have been followed before the Exposure Draft is issued.

Optional step not taken.

The ED relates to a very narrow scope and target audience so the drafts were sent to selected external reviewers with industry knowledge.

Publication:
ED published.

Required

ED has been posted on the IASB website.

The DPOC has been informed of the release of the ED.

ED was posted to the IASB website on 25 April 2013, with comment period of 132 days.

Press release to announce publication of ED.

Required

Press Release has been published.

Media coverage of the release.

The DPOC has been informed of the release of the ED.

Press release was posted to the IASB website on 25 April 2013, and sent as an eAlert.

Snapshot document to explain the rationale and basic concepts included in the ED.

Optional

Snapshot has been posted on the IASB website.

The DPOC has received a report of outreach activities.

The Snapshot has been sent to DPOC members.

Snapshot was posted to the IASB website on 25 April 2013.