Subject: Adminrest: more on sec 7

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:44:35 -0500 (EST)

lots of left over referenmces to a seperate account

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 01:11:22 -0500

At Wed,  1 Dec 2004 23:44:35 -0500 (EST), Scott Bradner wrote:
> 
> lots of left over references to a seperate account

Scott,

Thanks for all the notes.

Regarding all the places where you think we forgot to remove the word
"account": there's more than one kind of account, and I think you're
confusing one with another.

That is: if you read section 5.1, you'll see that it still talks about
"a separate set of accounts".  It's not separate bank accounts
anymore, but it is separate bookkeeping, as described in 5.1.  Please
note that Bert and I didn't cook this up on our own, it was based on a
suggestion (for which we are grateful) from ISOC's Treasurer.

No doubt there are some places where the phrasing has not completely
caught up to this model (in particular, as I look at it now, there are
a couple of instances of "deposited" that should be "credited"), but
our understanding is that the community does want some visibility into
the IASA's accounting and that this mechanism of divisional accounting
(see the text) is a way to achieve that.

So, with that out of the way: could you please let us know how many of
the "leftover references" you cited still look wrong?

Thanks.

--Rob

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:23:17 +0100

I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the right thing, given 
Rob's explanation of "divisional accounting", and using "account" in the 
sense of "what's accounted for".

We do have consensus that the IASA has to account for the money that it 
handles to the community.

I think 5.1, which currently says "funds managed by IASA should be kept in 
a separate set of accounts", may want to say "funds managed by IASA should 
be accounted for in a separate set of accounts".

But I'm no more an accountant than I'm a lawyer.....

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:16:11 -0500 (EST)

Harald suggestes:
> I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the right thing,

I woke up this am having decided in my sleep (not a good sign in
and of itself) to suggest the same thing

Scott

---

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:02:34 +0200

Harald,  yes, that would read much better and is closer to what I 
believe our combined intent was/is.

Regards,

Lynn

At 11:23 AM +0100 12/2/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the right 
>thing, given Rob's explanation of "divisional accounting", and using 
>"account" in the sense of "what's accounted for".
>
>We do have consensus that the IASA has to account for the money that 
>it handles to the community.
>
>I think 5.1, which currently says "funds managed by IASA should be 
>kept in a separate set of accounts", may want to say "funds managed 
>by IASA should be accounted for in a separate set of accounts".
>