The problem doesn't appear to have anything to do with servers, but with the registrar itself simply being removed:
“I’m torn here,” says Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University and a director of its High Tech Law Institute. He supports the right of companies such as GoDaddy and Google to exercise discretion as to the content they host on their servers. But he points out that GoDaddy wasn’t actually hosting the Daily Stormer’s files; it merely served as the site’s domain registrar, directing internet traffic toward it. “The domain hosting is a relatively rarely focused-on chokepoint” for political pressure, Goldman told me. “Turning on or off content at that level is much deeper into the infrastructure layer than we’re used to seeing.”
Nate Cardozo, staff attorney for the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, expressed similar concerns to the Verge’s Russell Brandom: “We feel that the infrastructure that serves up the internet must remain neutral. It’s pipes versus houses.”
This means that Daily Stormer's fight to remain on the internet was in finding a registrar and not because someone blew up their servers in their garage at the Fuhrer's bunker.
Can the Daily Stormer become its own registrar? I think I MIGHT have seen discussion of that some time ago for GAB, but my impression is that becoming a registrar would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This is all new territory, but good public policy imho would be to punish any corporation that sorta looked like a public carrier (whether it technically was one or not) that tried to censor users based on their political views.
Anti-trust looks like the best tool in the tool-kit to get the job done.
(Facebook, Google, Amazon etal are becoming zucking dangerous and this is not a good time to hide behind momma’s skirts of libertarian ideology.)