ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular "ISOC Standards Pillar"

2005-01-25 14:06:27
Comments below.

Thanks, Lynn

At 6:03 PM +0100 1/20/05, Tom Petch wrote:
Inline,
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>

<snip>

 >
 > "IASA accounts" should probably be changed to "IASA general ledger
 accounts" - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping instead of
the
 rather vague term "accounts".

general ledger is indeed a recognizable term from bookkeeping but it is
not the one I would want to see.  Accountancy (as taught to me) divides
up the ledger into accounts, and yes, acccounts is also a recognizable
term.

There still seems to be some confusion over terms:

Per ISOC's Director of Finance - Lynn DuVal and following GAAP practices: an organization keeps several sets of LEDGERS (sometimes called books) and at year end the balances in the LEDGERS get rolled up into the GENERAL LEDGER. The figures in the GENERAL LEDGER are used to prepare the balance sheet and profit and loss statements (and will be used to prepare the financial statements for IASA). For completeness - during audits, the auditors sample accounting transactions during the year and tie them to the GENERAL LEDGER accounts.

ISOC's preference is that we stay with the term: General Ledger Accounts. Not only is this most appropriate, but it provides a helpful distinction.

The ledger is typically divided up into (traditionally physical
separate books)
 - purchases/creditors ledger
 - sales/debtors ledger
 - general/impersonal ledger
 - private ledger
so seeing only the general ledger gives me an incomplete, perhaps
misleading view of the financial state of an organisation.  In fact, I
would want to see the private ledger first since it contains profit and
loss, trading, drawings etc.

ISOC does not run private ledgers - at all.


More generally, I would want to see the IASA accounts (an accountancy
technical term) in the ledger (another accountancy technical term).

Or do these terms change meaning as they go west across the Atlantic?
<snip>

or perhaps they change meaning when technical (terms) meets accountancy? <grin>

I'll address Margaret's comments separately, as while I understand and agree with her position, I think it's appropriate to provide a bit more specificity in the BCP if only to minimize surprises downstream.

Regards,

Lynn St.Amour


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf