Breaking the rules is too dangerous. Don't let it continue.
I've already sent one message to this address earlier, but for now I've got some additional comments. Many people here, including mr. Lesnikov (known as a one of top RosNIIROS officers), propose to make some "special" decisions regarding .SU basing on its current activeness, historical role etc. Mr. Lesnikov even proposes to establish a new kind of TLD, named "historical TLD". Every technical person who knows DNS basics should realize that each additional name within the root zone means additional load to _ALL_ the existing DNS servers because of having to hold several additional records in the cache. Definitely this reduces the load of the servers of SLDs a bit, but their load is not too serious now. From the other hand, there are thousands of companies and persons who would love to make some money from another TLD, as administering a TLD is one of the most efficient and easy money makers I ever heard of. This type of activity has no use for Internet Community, it only provides "pretty" domain names for some (strange) people, money for another people and additional load of DNS servers for the rest of the Internet. Thus, the mission of ICANN, as I see it, must be to prevent the root DNS zone from uncontrolled growing, and until now, this task is acceptably solved. One of the keys to this is following some certain transparent rules and policies which don't serve any particular commerical interests. The policy for two-letter TLDs is now that they all must be ccTLDs and must comply to ISO3166. Some people claim this policy should be changed (or an exception in the policy should be made) just because they don't want .SU to be destroyed. Let's see however what results can follow. One of the possible difficulties is mentioned in the discussed paper: "SU" can be assigned by ISO comitee to some other country or territory, and then there will be a real disaster. However, let's even imagine that such (particular) assignment is impossible, just to focus on more important circumstances. First of all, we live in the world of equal rights. What is allowed to one, that must be allowed to everyone. So, if you agree not to remove one obsoleted domain, you can be absolutely sure you'll never manage to remove any obsoleted domain in the future again. That is, in case any country renames, unites with other, separates down to independent parts etc., ICANN will have to assign a new domain in accordance to the policy, but definitely will be unable to remove the obsoleted one. In particular, forget about retiring .TP in this case. Furthermore, some of countries which already agreed to drop their obsoleted domains (such as CS and ZR) can demand to return "their" domains back, arguing they've got the same rights as Russia and East Timor. This could be taken not too serious because such political cataclisms don't happen too often. However, don't forget there are lots of very little countries such as Tuvalu and Butan. For such countries, ccTLD can be a valuable source of funding; so, I won't be surprized if their governments (or what do they have instead of one) decides to rename the country just to get another TLD. It is expensive to rename a major country, but renaming such a little one can be cheap enough, even many times cheaper than to negotiate another sTLD with ICANN. They could get lots of TLDs this way, and needless to say they'll never agree to return any of them (because they've got the same rights as the others). Such a practice could make the system of ccTLDs totally unable to follow ISO3166 and produce total chaos in the root DNS zone. ICANN or any other authority will have then no arguments against opening the root zone for private registrations of TLDs, and then the system known as DNS will just cease to exist. Responsibly realizing difficulties of pending action of removing an active and promoted TLD, I however humbly ask ICANN not to make any exceptions or changes to the existing ccTLD policy, as we can end up with a total catastrophe if you do so. Thanks for your attention. -- Andrey V. Stolyarov