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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<snip>
> > "IASA accounts" should probably be changed to "IASA general ledgeraccounts" - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping instead oftherather 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf