Free thinkers' universe. (Evolution).

In the early 1970s, the ARPANET users began to create software that enabled them to turn the network into a sort of electronic post office. They could send messages to one another, exchange ideas, ask questions, etc. and both sender and receiver didn't have to be available at the same time.

Very quickly, discussions started up through what were called store-and-forward nets. The users themselves developed software, such as Usenet, BITNET, and Fidonet, to make communicating easier within what were now called Newsgroups. By the middle of the 1980s, Usenet had grown into a monster. There were hundreds of newsgroups but the system was chaotic. At the same time, weirdos, nutbars, and the socially psychotic were invading Usenet.

To bring order to the chaos, network administrators decided to restructure the newsgroups into hierarchies. Seven categories of groups were proposed: computers, miscellaneous, news, recreation, science, society, and talk.

The wingnuts and wackos could let off steam in the talk newsgroups. In this way, their unsavoury and often disgusting comments could be kept from polluting serious newsgroups. If they were confined to one place, they were there for those who wanted them. There was no serious talk of trying to ban or in any way censor the groups, beyond making them easy to avoid. Among netizens this event has gone down in history as the "Great Renaming." It prompted a flame war -- a flood of e-mail complaints, criticism, and outrage. It was clear that the Net's users regarded it as their community property. Anybody who tried to impose regulation and management on the system was in for a rough ride. A provocative proposal was put forward by Internet activist Richard Sexton. He suggested adding a new category of alternative and adding suffixes such as .drugs and .sex. In typical Net fashion, this notion was put to a vote of users. Mr. Sexton's proposal won, but network administrators refused to go along with the majority.

What happened next explains how and why the Internet has remained an ungoverned, unstructured, democratic, and organic entity. Alternative Usenet groups were set up that bypassed the "official" routings. Alt.drugs, alt.food, alt.rock-n-roll, and a host of others sprouted uncontrollably.

The culture of the Internet is one that staunchly defends freedom of expression and it's a home for information junkies.

Philippe Breton is a sociologist at France's National Centre for Scientific Research. He says the Internet is "the true church of those who place great value in information," and adds that it is presented as "the spirituality of the third millennium." Mr. Breton suggests the Internet has become, to some users, a kind of religion that doesn't have any gods. The central belief of this cult is described by the French newspaper Liberation: "To see all, to show all, without any barrier, protection, or censorship -- this is the unquestioned principle of many Internet surfers."

According to Mr. Breton, the followers of this "faith" believe that social harmony will be the result of the disappearance of secrecy and lies. They see "as negative everything that is in the realm of what is secret, hidden, private, intimate, deep, and non-visible." Power, laws, and privacy are consequently seen as getting in the way of harmony.

To a large extent this view is similar to that of anarchists, who believe that society would function better without top-down direction. It's no coincidence that the anti-globalization movement has taken to the Internet like a duck to water. As a community with few rules, the Internet appeals to the anarchist mindset, and there are links between anarchists and anti-globalization protests.

The Internet does have regulations and standards but, for the most part, these have been put in place by its users; direction is bottom-up. Most of the groups that make sure the Net runs smoothly are self-created and self-governing. In addition, they make decisions on a consensus basis, which is the anarchist model writ large.

One of the people involved in the Internet Engineering Task Force is David Clark. He says, "We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus." That means there doesn't have to be unanimous approval of

decisions, but something close to it.

This loose approach to "governing" the Internet doesn't sit well with everybody, particularly the corporate world and government. However, there is a strong feeling among Internet enthusiasts that any effort by government or business to direct the network must be resisted to the last mouse click.

FACT FILE

In October 2001, there were almost three billion unique, publicly accessible Web pages on the Internet and the were being added to at the rate of 7.3 million new ones a day.

Websites

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org

Internet Engineering Task Force http://www.ietf.org/