Yahoo! Groups ban…who is responsible?
"Some smaller ISPs had a totally different story to say. Instead of blaming the government or Yahoo!, they said they could do little because bandwidth providers have blocked access to that IP address. "
Sep 29, 2003
Government of India's attempts to Block Yahoogroups ??
GOI had asked the ISPs to block access to a particular yahoogroup site, however, many ISPs have blocked access to entire yahoogroups site.
(It may not effect many yahoogroups members, but it does hinder moderators to do their job - and therefore, the effectiveness of the groups)
A copy of the government GO, which was available at:
http://corporate.ddsl.net/images/sc1.gif
It is from the Ministry of Communications and IT - LR Cell, signed by Jayant Kumar, Director, LR II (tel # 011 23372601)
It tells ISPs to block http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/kynhun/ - and definitely not to block the whole of yahoogroups.
On Google news
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&edition=us&q=cert-in
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=yahoo+group+blocked+india&btnG=Search+News
And Yahoo Groups says
"India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) recently issued an order
directing India's ISPs to block access from India to the Yahoo! Groups
service operated by Yahoo! Inc. in Sunnyvale, California. Although the order
apparently was intended to block access to only one particular U.S.-based
group, the practical effect has been to block access from India to all of
Yahoo!'s U.S-based Groups. The Group targeted by the DoT did not at any time
appear on Yahoo! India. Yahoo! Inc. has requested that the DoT narrow the
scope and impact of its order and hopes the DoT will restore your access to
this service shortly."
News items about the Ban made it across the world
In Australia
in UK
And of course in our Indian publications
Mid Day
Economic Times
GOI had asked the ISPs to block access to a particular yahoogroup site, however, many ISPs have blocked access to entire yahoogroups site.
(It may not effect many yahoogroups members, but it does hinder moderators to do their job - and therefore, the effectiveness of the groups)
A copy of the government GO, which was available at:
http://corporate.ddsl.net/images/sc1.gif
It is from the Ministry of Communications and IT - LR Cell, signed by Jayant Kumar, Director, LR II (tel # 011 23372601)
It tells ISPs to block http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/kynhun/ - and definitely not to block the whole of yahoogroups.
On Google news
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&edition=us&q=cert-in
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=yahoo+group+blocked+india&btnG=Search+News
And Yahoo Groups says
"India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) recently issued an order
directing India's ISPs to block access from India to the Yahoo! Groups
service operated by Yahoo! Inc. in Sunnyvale, California. Although the order
apparently was intended to block access to only one particular U.S.-based
group, the practical effect has been to block access from India to all of
Yahoo!'s U.S-based Groups. The Group targeted by the DoT did not at any time
appear on Yahoo! India. Yahoo! Inc. has requested that the DoT narrow the
scope and impact of its order and hopes the DoT will restore your access to
this service shortly."
News items about the Ban made it across the world
In Australia
in UK
And of course in our Indian publications
Mid Day
Economic Times
Mahesh Murthy on why NOT to do an MBA
To B School or Not to Be
"First: Understand that an MBA, in India at least, has nothing to do with education. Please 'get' this. It's not that institutes teach you stuff that is irrelevant and obsolete. That's probably true, too. It's that nobody cares what you are taught here.
Second: An MBA is about filtration. You're an employer - more likely, an HR person, and you have to hire the batch of 2004. You can either search far and wide for the right people, and expend a lot of energy - or take the easy way out. You assume that the top of the gene pool would have filtered up to the top of the MBA pool. So you set your sights on the right 'level' schools, and go hire at will. You secretly know your assumption is invalid, but everybody's doing it so it's okay. "
Well there are six more points in that article ! Go ahead and read MM's contrary view points :-D
To B School or Not to Be
"First: Understand that an MBA, in India at least, has nothing to do with education. Please 'get' this. It's not that institutes teach you stuff that is irrelevant and obsolete. That's probably true, too. It's that nobody cares what you are taught here.
Second: An MBA is about filtration. You're an employer - more likely, an HR person, and you have to hire the batch of 2004. You can either search far and wide for the right people, and expend a lot of energy - or take the easy way out. You assume that the top of the gene pool would have filtered up to the top of the MBA pool. So you set your sights on the right 'level' schools, and go hire at will. You secretly know your assumption is invalid, but everybody's doing it so it's okay. "
Well there are six more points in that article ! Go ahead and read MM's contrary view points :-D
Sep 24, 2003
Whats your Google Number ??
Valdis Krebs article on how Google’s greatest application as an ‘HR tool’ is not in the corporation – it is out among the free agents, consultants and entrepreneurs who live and work by reputation and experience. It is here where ‘Google numbers’ become very important.
Last week, several Knowledge Management consultants and I were sitting around after a conference. We were discussing the current economic climate, when one of the consultants started bragging about a just published book. Soon others were talking about their books. Eventually we were verbally jousting – who amongst us was the most ‘well-known’ consultant? Being the only consultant present without a book to my name, I had to quickly turn the measuring stick from ‘books published’ to something else. I remembered my friend’s amazement at my Google number. As one consultant finished listing some of his Fortune 100 clients, I said, “That’s nice, but what’s your Google number?” Puzzled looks soon overcame everyone in the room. Google number? What’s that? I quickly explained that it was a rough-order measure of your reputation and influence as a thought-leader – it is how much buzz, or word-of-mouth, you have as an expert.
Valdis Krebs article on how Google’s greatest application as an ‘HR tool’ is not in the corporation – it is out among the free agents, consultants and entrepreneurs who live and work by reputation and experience. It is here where ‘Google numbers’ become very important.
Last week, several Knowledge Management consultants and I were sitting around after a conference. We were discussing the current economic climate, when one of the consultants started bragging about a just published book. Soon others were talking about their books. Eventually we were verbally jousting – who amongst us was the most ‘well-known’ consultant? Being the only consultant present without a book to my name, I had to quickly turn the measuring stick from ‘books published’ to something else. I remembered my friend’s amazement at my Google number. As one consultant finished listing some of his Fortune 100 clients, I said, “That’s nice, but what’s your Google number?” Puzzled looks soon overcame everyone in the room. Google number? What’s that? I quickly explained that it was a rough-order measure of your reputation and influence as a thought-leader – it is how much buzz, or word-of-mouth, you have as an expert.
Sep 17, 2003
Edgar Schein on Organizational Innovation
My post on Innovating Challengers egroup:
From the Businessworld article:
MIT's Edgar Schein has very strong views on organisational culture.
He believes business theory has got it all wrong - it is impossible
to transform an innovative company into a business-driven one.
"A culture of innovation doesn't scale up. As a company grows, it
must either find a way to break away small units which continue to
innovate, or abandon innovation as a strategic priority. Also,
different organisations with different cultures are needed at
different stages in the evolution of a market. Current business
theories are too locked in making a mature corporation in a mature
market not only economically effective, but innovative as well. That
may be just as difficult as making an innovative company economically
effective. In a developing market based on new technologies, you may
need more organisations like Digital, many of which will not survive,
but will create an industry. Thus, playing their role as innovators.
I am not sure that companies can avoid getting into such a culture
trap. Business books always have a solution for everything. I am
trying to be a bit more pragmatic. Some problems don't have an easy
resolution. Companies do die. Wang could not make this transition.
Neither could Polaroid. It is not something which you can necessarily
fix unless the entrepreneur is able to see it and chooses to abandon
some of his original values. But you cannot say he should see it -
some do, some don't. It is very easy for us to say what the
entrepreneur should or shouldn't do. But it is very difficult to
predict if they, in fact, will do it.
Business books are written on the premise that the business gene is
there is every company. And that it is just a question of figuring
out how to become economically successful. But, I think, if you want
innovation, you have to consider the possibility that you will create
organisations that will die. They will innovate. They will influence
technology but they will not make that transition. Why do we say DEC
should have survived? Maybe it's the kind of company which should
have died."
"There are two kinds of anxiety associated with learning - learning
anxiety and survival anxiety. Learning anxiety comes from being
afraid to try something new for fear that it will be too difficult,
or that we will look stupid in the attempt. Survival anxiety, on the
other hand, is the realisation that in order to make it, we will have
to change.
Now, change will only happen if the survival anxiety is more than the
learning anxiety. And most managers make the mistake of increasing
the survival anxiety rather than decreasing the learning anxiety. It
is a mistake because that just creates more tension and defensiveness
if I am convinced I cannot learn the new things I have to learn. If
the leadership has convinced me that the vision of the future is non-
negotiable, I already know I have to change. If my leadership also
tells me that they will help me change, that I will be involved in
choosing the mechanisms by which I will learn, that they will give me
the time and resources to facilitate learning, and that they will
provide coaching, all of that will reduce the learning anxiety, and
that work "
What do you think? Do you agree with Prof. Schein? Why or why not?
My post on Innovating Challengers egroup:
From the Businessworld article:
MIT's Edgar Schein has very strong views on organisational culture.
He believes business theory has got it all wrong - it is impossible
to transform an innovative company into a business-driven one.
"A culture of innovation doesn't scale up. As a company grows, it
must either find a way to break away small units which continue to
innovate, or abandon innovation as a strategic priority. Also,
different organisations with different cultures are needed at
different stages in the evolution of a market. Current business
theories are too locked in making a mature corporation in a mature
market not only economically effective, but innovative as well. That
may be just as difficult as making an innovative company economically
effective. In a developing market based on new technologies, you may
need more organisations like Digital, many of which will not survive,
but will create an industry. Thus, playing their role as innovators.
I am not sure that companies can avoid getting into such a culture
trap. Business books always have a solution for everything. I am
trying to be a bit more pragmatic. Some problems don't have an easy
resolution. Companies do die. Wang could not make this transition.
Neither could Polaroid. It is not something which you can necessarily
fix unless the entrepreneur is able to see it and chooses to abandon
some of his original values. But you cannot say he should see it -
some do, some don't. It is very easy for us to say what the
entrepreneur should or shouldn't do. But it is very difficult to
predict if they, in fact, will do it.
Business books are written on the premise that the business gene is
there is every company. And that it is just a question of figuring
out how to become economically successful. But, I think, if you want
innovation, you have to consider the possibility that you will create
organisations that will die. They will innovate. They will influence
technology but they will not make that transition. Why do we say DEC
should have survived? Maybe it's the kind of company which should
have died."
"There are two kinds of anxiety associated with learning - learning
anxiety and survival anxiety. Learning anxiety comes from being
afraid to try something new for fear that it will be too difficult,
or that we will look stupid in the attempt. Survival anxiety, on the
other hand, is the realisation that in order to make it, we will have
to change.
Now, change will only happen if the survival anxiety is more than the
learning anxiety. And most managers make the mistake of increasing
the survival anxiety rather than decreasing the learning anxiety. It
is a mistake because that just creates more tension and defensiveness
if I am convinced I cannot learn the new things I have to learn. If
the leadership has convinced me that the vision of the future is non-
negotiable, I already know I have to change. If my leadership also
tells me that they will help me change, that I will be involved in
choosing the mechanisms by which I will learn, that they will give me
the time and resources to facilitate learning, and that they will
provide coaching, all of that will reduce the learning anxiety, and
that work "
What do you think? Do you agree with Prof. Schein? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)