For years, a persistent idea circulated within digital circles: that the internet relied on just 13 servers. This technical detail often went unexamined, its complexity and seeming obscurity making it difficult for many to grasp. The notion suggested a fragile, highly centralized system, vulnerable to collapse with the shutdown of a handful of machines. But the reality of the internet’s infrastructure is far more nuanced, distributed and strategically complex, and understanding it is key to understanding how power operates in cyberspace today.
The “13” wasn’t a reference to thirteen physical computers holding up the global network, but rather to thirteen logical identifiers known as root servers of the Domain Name System (DNS). As network engineer Gaurav Kansal, a specialist in DNS infrastructure, explains, these root servers emerged in the 1980s as a technical solution to the limitations of early academic networks, where name resolution was handled through centralized files. The limit of thirteen servers wasn’t a political or geopolitical decision, but a pragmatic response to the technological constraints of the time, which dictated how many addresses could be included in a response.
As the internet expanded beyond academic and military circles, the root infrastructure evolved as well. During the latter half of the 1980s, new servers were incorporated to handle growing traffic and the emergence of networks like NSFNET, which significantly broadened access to the network. The 1990s saw a qualitative leap with the installation of root servers outside of North America, marking the beginning of a truly international infrastructure.
The Evolution of a Distributed System
By the end of the 1990s, the scheme of thirteen identifiers was consolidated, and remains in place today, accompanied by a shared management model between various technical and academic organizations. What’s truly innovative about this model becomes clear when you gaze beyond those thirteen letters. Each identifier isn’t a single server, but a global network of replicas distributed using anycast technology. In practice, In other words that when a user attempts to access a website, their query doesn’t necessarily travel to a distant point on the planet, but is answered by the nearest instance, located in their region or even their own country.
Currently, the root of the internet consists of nearly two thousand physical instances distributed across dozens of countries and operated by twelve independent organizations, including universities, research centers, technical entities, and private companies. This architecture not only improves the speed and efficiency of the system, but also makes it extraordinarily resilient. Attacking a single instance doesn’t affect the whole. even coordinated attacks struggle to create lasting systemic impacts.
Power Beyond a Single Point of Control
This design breaks with the classic intuition of power concentrated in one place. There’s no “red button” to shut down the internet, no secret room from which global access to the network is controlled. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that power is absent. The governance of the DNS root is a prime example of how power in the digital age doesn’t always manifest as direct control, but as the ability to define standards, rules, and technical procedures that structure the system’s operation.
Those who establish the rules for assigning names, resolving addresses, and ensuring DNS stability indirectly but profoundly impact the global economic, political, and social landscape. From the growing e-commerce sector to the management of public services, from diplomatic communications to financial infrastructure, everything depends on this system functioning securely, reliably, and predictably.
The Challenge of Digital Sovereignty
The root of the internet also reveals a contemporary paradox: what appears decentralized requires constant coordination. Whereas instances are geographically distributed, the system’s coherence depends on technical agreements, institutional trust, and international cooperation. Without this shared governance, the “balkanization of the internet”—or splinternet—becomes a real risk. This point is particularly relevant in a context where tensions surrounding digital sovereignty are increasing. Many states are seeking greater control over their data, infrastructure, and information flows. However, the anatomy of the internet’s root demonstrates that absolute autonomy is, in practice, unviable.
The challenge isn’t to isolate, but to actively participate in the spaces where the technical rules that underpin the digital ecosystem are defined. For regions like Latin America, this discussion isn’t abstract. The presence—or absence—of root instances, traffic exchange points, and local technical capabilities has concrete impacts on costs, security, and the quality of connectivity.
In a world marked by commercial, technological, and strategic disputes, the root of the internet demonstrates that digital power isn’t concentrated in a single center, but unfolds in invisible architectures that sustain networked life. Silent but decisive battles over sovereignty, economics, and global security are fought there. Understanding this framework is recognizing that the future of our societies will depend on states’ ability to actively engage in its governance, defining common standards and protecting critical infrastructure as an indispensable condition for national security. Only then can they ensure that the digital future is a space of stability, cooperation, and shared development for humanity.
Professor of International Relations (Ucalp) and specialist in Chinese Studies (IRI-UNLP)
