这几天还在看萨班斯法案的东西,SEC要求上市公司以及向它提交财务报表的公司都要符合萨班斯SOX法案,其中的404条款和302条款提到了符合过程中IT控制的责任,但是没有提具体应该部署哪些“控制”。推荐大家参照COSO的符合性框架,COSO的符合性框架只提了五个层次的框架,但是还是没有指明到底应该部署哪些控制。于是关于具体控制选择指导就落到了CoBIT的肩上。ITGI的白皮书中特意强调没有”one-size-fits-all”的解决方案,每个企业应该根据自己的实际情况来决定IT控制的选择。但是,你的选择对不对呢?要看外部审计公司的审定。按照这个逻辑,这些外部审计公司(他们同时还作咨询业务)岂不是既是规则制订者,又是裁决者了。本身违反了SOD(Segregation of Duties)原则。这个看法可能不全面,甚至不对,大家批评指正。
* COSO :: The Committee of Sponsoring Organization of the Treadway Commission, 隶属于美国国会的反对虚假财务报告委员会(NCFR). COSO是一个通过商业道德、有效的内部控制和公司治理结构以致力于改善财务报告的美国民间组织。COSO形成于1985年。研究导致虚假财务报告的偶发因素,并为上市公司及其独立审计师,为SEC(美国证券交易委员会)和其他监管机构以及教育机构提供建议。该委员会由美国五个主要财务职业协会共同主办:AAA(美国会计学会)、AICPA(美国注册会计师协会)、FEI(财务经理协会)、IIA(内部审计师协会)和 NAA(全国会计师协会,现为 IMA、管理会计师协会)。它完全独立于各主办组织。代表来自于工业、公共会计、投资公司和NYSE(纽约证券交易所)。由于该委员会的第一任主席是 James C.Treadway,因此通常称为Treadway委员会。
* PCAOB :: Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 公众公司会计监管委员会
* ITGI :: IT Governance Institute 信息技术治理研究院(学会),该组织由很多咨询公司和大企业的资深人士组成,其出版的SOX符合与IT控制白皮书非常值得大家读一读。其他不少讲萨班斯SOX符合性的PPT,图都是取材于该白皮书。网址是http://www.itgi.org
SOX Humor: What is common among the following words: SarbanesOxley, sarbanes ox, Sabanes Oxley, Sabannes Oxley, sabanas, Saban Oxley, Sabane Oxley, sarban oxly, sorbonne oxley, sarban oxley, sarbannes oxley, sarbane-oxley, sarbanis oxley, sarbanne oxley, sarbanes oaxley, sarban oaxley, sarbanese oxley, sarbonnes oaxley, sorbanne oaxley, serbanes oaxley, sarbane oaxley, Sarbaines Oxley, sarbanesh oxley, Sarbaines Oxely, sarbenes oxley, Sorbane Oxley, Sarbanes Oakley, Sarbane Oxly, Sarbonnes Oxley, Sarbanas Oxlay, sarbane oakley, akslays, sarbain aksley, sarban aksleys, sarbane ausley, sarbans auxey, sarbarnes auxley, sarbin axlays, sabranes oxl, sabarnes axley, sabines exley, sabones osley, sarbone, sarboness, sardane, serbanss, serbians, sirbanes, sirbaness, sirbans, sirbanss, sirbens Oxley, sirbenss Oxley, sorbain Oxley, sorbaine Oxley, sorbanes Oxley, sorbaness Oxley, sorbenes Oxley, sorbeness Oxley, sorbian Oxley?
Comment to “Skype Blocked at China”
November 11, 2005At a previous post, “Skype’s road to China“, I introduced my view point of Skype at China, not bright as they are at other lands, due to the restrictions of the regulations and market circumstances. Along with the emerging technology/product from Verso, the “blocking of PC-to-phone”, ie. SkypeOut, was reported to be blocked at Shenzhen and other three cities at China.
A lot of report titiled “Skype-blocked at China” were headlined at many of world famouse relevant newpapers and journals. That kind of activity was even regarded as “bureaucratic politics” by Clark, managing director of BDA China.
It’s well known that Skype is different from Vonage, the latter is protected at USA as a VoIP service provider according to the FCC regulations, while the former is not. Because Skype makes money from network infrastructure of other telco companies without any revenue sharing or settlement mechanism.
At China, PC-to-Phone and Phone-to-Phone VoIP services are restricted to be “basic telecom service”, allowed to only a few state run telco companies. Althoug foreign companies will get more penetration opportunities along with WTO openness of telecom market, that would not benefit Skype, unless Skype succeed in transformation to a more transparent and open technology, e.g, communication protocol, key management, billing data output, interop with SIP, and etc.
It’s obvious that Skype represent a killer technology to provide voice and video services at a very lower cost (of course, not zero like what Skype spend on their services). It’s the responsibility of the government (in China, it’s MII) to represent consumers to force the service providers to make use of advanced technologies at the possibly earliest time (if they won’t, new licenses will be issued to other providers). But, as to China Telecom, China Netcom, and other service providers, they won’t give up their monopoly privileges currently have unless they are forced to. So “blocking skype at China” is only a tactic action to prepare themselves for the uncertainty of the future regulations.
The differences between PC and “Phone” are becoming more and more obsecure, so it will be more and more difficult to distinguish “PC to PC“ against “PC to Phone”. That’s why I suggest Skype’s road to China lies at penetrating into those handheld devices with WiMax, WiFi, GRPS, 3G wireless link.