Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
So... not 100% sure I captured the result ciorrectly.
This is what we have in rev 04:
<section title="Divisional Accounting"
anchor="divisional-accounting">
<t>
Funds managed by IASA shall be accounted for in a
separate set of accounts.
Separate financial reports, including a balance
sheet and a profit and loss statement for IASA alone,
shall be produced as directed by IAOC.
</t>
<t>
IAOC and ISOC shall agree upon and publish procedures
for reporting and auditing of these accounts.
</t>
</section>
This is what I have in my edit buffer for revision 05
<section title="Cost Center Accounting" anchor="cc-accounting">
<t>
As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA shall
be accounted for in a separate set of accounts
within the Cost Center IASA.
A periodic summary of the IASA accounts shall be reported
in the form of standard financial statements that reflect
the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of the IASA
cost center.
</t>
<t>
IAOC and ISOC shall agree upon and publish procedures
for reporting and auditing of these accounts.
</t>
<t>
Note that the ISOC in consultation with IAOC can
determine to structure the IASA accounting
differently in the future within the constraints
outlined in <xref target="isoc-responsibilities"/>.
</t>
</section>
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Yes, echoing Carl, +/- 5%.
I have left the change to "General Ledger Accounts" out for the
time being, because I am not sure we have consensus on that yet
(even though ISOC prefers that terminology).
I'm with ISOC on this. It is not at all obscure terminology for
anyone with even minimal experience with accounting systems
and it adds a useful amount of precision. But it's in the 5%, i.e.
not a show-stopper for me.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf