US Telco Fined $3 Million in Domain Renewal Blunder (bleepingcomputer.com)

Catalin Cimpanu, writing for BleepingComputer: Sorenson Communications, a Utah-based telecommunications provider, received a whopping $3 million fine from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week for failing to renew a crucial domain name used by a part of the local 911 emergency service. The affected service was the Video Relay System (VRS), a video calling service that telecommunication firms must provide to deaf people and others people with vocal disabilities so they can make video calls to 911 services and use sign language to notify operators of an emergency or crime. According to the FCC, on June 6, Sorenson failed to notice that the domain name on which the VRS 911 service ran had expired, leading to the entire system collapsing shortly after. Utah residents with disabilities were unable to reach 911 operators for almost three days, the FCC discovered. Sorensen noticed its blunder and renewed the domain three days later, on June 8.

Comments

If the registrars/hosters are liable...

[mi]

Then certainly Google ought to be fined for cancelling domain-registration of some Nazis.

No, the Nazis' ability to speak is not as important as disabled's ability to reach emergency services. But if a company can be fined a whopping $3 million for an unintended screw-up, Google ought to be comparably punished for a deliberate action against the customers' civil rights.

Yeah, yeah, I know, Google are a private business — yet, their very ability to offer domain-registration and similar services stems from government's authority over the Internet. And Congress shall make no laws allowing anyone to shut up unwanted speech like they did.

Re:If the registrars/hosters are liable...

[mi]

so your comparisons to Google's situation fall apart right from the get-go.

The subject of the thread still lists hosters (of services) in addition to registrars. Moreover, registrars — such as Google — have an even greater responsibility. Whereas a hosting provider may choose to discontinue service to a particularly unpleasant customer, a registrar should not have such ability — certainly not without first seeing the customer's domain safely migrated elsewhere.

Speaking of IANA, it, rather than the US government, is the organization with the authority you're talking about. The USG gave it away in 1998 to ICANN

Bullshit. Whatever it is ostensibly, the governance of the Internet is still very much controlled by the US government with ICANN allowed to do its thing only as long the US is Ok with it. Many of the root DNS-servers are US-owned...

As I said earlier, the domain-registrars are very government-like in their very purpose, like Registries of Deeds, for example...

The courts have repeatedly ruled that inciting violence—which is what The Daily Stormer is accused of—is an unlawful form of speech

You aren't offering any citations — how is mere accusation of inciting violence sufficient for government to suppress speech?..

But, meanwhile, do I understand you correctly, that you'll have no problem with any and all "Antifa" sites losing their domains? They aren't merely "accused" of inciting violence, not even merely observed engaging in it, they openly admit it.

don't you dare suggest that private entities are obligated to assist them

Just as Daily Stormer agreed to Google's terms, Google have agreed to — and did for a while — host them regardless of their views, voluntarily. They did not have to take them, but they did.

Notary Publics are private too, and they aren't obligated to serve anyone in particular. But, once they notarize your signature, they can't — should not be able to — withdraw their certification on the basis of you being an asshole...

The sudden pull of the domain-registration is a scandal and a violation of the Nazis' civil rights.