--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 18:35:20 -0800 Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As near as I can tell, there is no argument that IETF money or assets should be kept for use by/on behalf of the IETF - should not be spent on other things, and should be accounted for appropriately. The language you reference seems to deal with various ways to phrase that. However it is phrased, I suspect we all agree on that.
What I understood the question to be was whether one would use generally agreed accounting principles in doing so - for example, not mingling designated funds with general funds in a common checkbook, and whether the words "account" or "accounts" mean "separate bank account" or "set of ledger accounts among the chart of accounts in accordance with normal accounting practice".
This shows up in section 3.1, where the IAD maintains "an account", and in section 5, which at times uses "accounts", in the plural and indicating a normal corporate set of ledger accounts, and at other times uses "account", in the singular, apparently conceptualizing a personal checkbook. I would like to read both of these as specifying that there will be an appropriate set of ledger accounts (plural, in the sense that a General Ledger program uses the term) as described in section 5.1, and not detailing whether the storage vehicle is a single checkbook, a checkbook and a savings account, or some other combination of bank vehicles.
I think you want to leave the details of the bank accounts to the financial folks discretion, as the right approach may change from time to time. You just want to be very clear on what is the IETF's and what isn't, and be able to review/report the ledger accounts when you need to.
Agreed - I thought this was already OK with the addition of section 5.1 on "Divisional accounting", so I did not suggest a change for it. Do we need to make a global pass of s/account/accounts/?
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf