Ted Hardie wrote:
At 4:48 PM +0100 1/19/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Harald responds to Lynn
> Lynn,
I actually disagree here.
The mind-picture I think we want to establish through using
"accounts" is
"rows of numbers that can be added up to get totals" - we want to
know what
it's costing, and where the money goes.
The mind-picture I get from "cost center" is "label applied to some
group
of activities".
I'd have no problem with ISOC saying to IASA "we propose that we
implement
the IASA accounts through the mechanism that we have built for cost
centers", and I think it's very appropriate that you try to check
that the
BCP contains nothing that prevents you from doing that.
But I'd prefer for the BCP to continue using the term "accounts".
We have had a call with the accounting people from ISOC.
On that call, it was explained to me (and that explanation makes sense)
that in normal accounting terminology, one works with:
- a cost center, which in our case would be the IASA cost center
- General Ledger Accounts, which would be "accounts" within a cost
center. So it allos us to separate out (or itemize) various types
of cost and revenue within the IASA cost center.
Further it was made clear to me that the IAD and IAOC can arrange with
the ISOC accounting staff to define which General Ledger Accounts we
want to see. So that means IAD and IAOC can specify the level of detail
on which to itemize and keep track of cost and revenue.
Lynn, pls correct me if I have not worded things correctly yet.
I think that meets our principle for transparency.
Kurtis (from the Transition Team) also agreed on that.
So I propose that I change the wording/naming of "Divisional Accounting"
into "Cost Center Accounting" and of "accounts" into "general ledger
accounts".
Bert
Hi Bert,
I still believe Harald's point is valid. We're not trying to
write a document to be read only by ISOC's accountants--we're
trying to write one that the IETF community both now and in the
future can read and understand. I believe the right thing to do
in that case is to use the general term (accounts), with specific
references to general ledger accounts or Cost Center accounting
as explanatory text on how the ISOC may implement this.
That seems to be essentially what Bert suggests - change the section
title to "Cost Center Accounting" and use the full phrase "general
ledger accounts" where it is useful to be specific. So we keep
the word "account" and use phrases generally recognized in business.
Seems OK to me.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf