Ah ships in the night; yes, Carl, I think this is the best wording so
far.
Two queries in my mind. Looking at the ISOC Report 2003, I notice it
uses revenue rather than income that you use; is there any hidden
meaning in that? eg because it is incorporated as a nonprofit
organization?
And reading between the lines, perhaps I should be less trusting of ISOC
so is
it sufficient to say periodic summary? Is there any implication
elsewhere of how often periodic is? I expect accounts at least every
12 months for any organisation, with them being more frequent for larger
organisations, even every three months for some.
Tom Petch
Engineer (who is also his own accountant)
- Original Message -
From: "Carl Malamud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tom Petch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular "ISOC
StandardsPillar"
> Hi Margaret -
>
> Maybe we agree, but I'm not sure. I used the following phrase:
>
>periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of
>standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses,
assets, and
>liabilities of that cost center.
>
> So, I agree with you that this doesn't have to say "of that cost
center" and could
> easily say "the IASA". But, when you say "in the form of a P&L
statement",
> I get a little scared ... as you know from your periodic reviews of
the ISOC
> overall finances, an income statement without a balance sheet doesn't
make a lot
> of sense.
>
> While keeping implementation details out of the BCP is a good thing, I
do
> think it is appropriate to get the general principle across: full
visibility
> and transparency of the IASA activity through the use of regular
reporting
> using standard financial statements that show the IETF community the
> income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of this particular activity.
>
> The general principle is that, because this is a community activity,
> we're all agreeing that more visibility than usual is appropriate
> here. That seems like a reasonable request/requirement, particularly
> given the past history of minimal reporting by the secretariat. Not
> your fault, I know, but this is a sensitive issue given the history
and
> thus requires a little extra attention.
>
> Regards,
>
> Carl
>
>
> >
> > I generally agree with Tom and Carl.
> >
> > The community needs visibility in to the IASA finances, sufficient
to
> > ensure that the IETF's money is spent on IETF-related activities
with
> > a reasonable level of prudence. I don't think that our BCP needs to
> > specify a reporting methodology that the IAD/IAOC should use to
> > provide that visibility...
> >
> > Today, we are looking at organizing the IASA as a cost center within
> > ISOC, and it seems likely that the visibility that the IETF needs
can
> > be provided in the form of a P&L statement for the costs center and
a
> > summary of its general ledger accounts. That's fine, but do we need
> > to say it here?
> >
> > There is a section of the BCP that says:
> >
> > Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how
to
> > structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a
> > department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC
in
> > consultation with the IAOC.
> >
> > It seems inconsistent with this section to mandate elsewhere that
the
> > IASA will be organized as a cost center, that we will use "cost
> > center accounting", that the financial reports will include a P&L
for
> > the cost center, that we will publish the general ledger accounts,
> > etc. These are details that, IMO, the IAOC and ISOC should work out
> > (and change as needed to meet the needs of IASA and the IETF
> > community) between themselves.
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> > At 11:43 AM -0800 1/20/05, Carl Malamud wrote:
> > >Hi -
> > >
> > >I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there
is some
> > >potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :))
> > >
> > >I think the vague term "accounts" is just fine for the purpose we
are
> > >engaged in. I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf
community
> > >would like to see a periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the
form of
> > >standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses,
assets, and
> &
