An (initially , concise) case for NOT facilitating cybersquatting.
I suppose everyone here except the familiar trolls would prefer to see safenet user adoption skyrocket. So perhaps having every single clearnet site cybersquatted to make a few bucks by us, early adopters, is slightly detrimental to that purpose. My reasoning is that current internet users derive value from its use by using familiar sites, with well established brands. (in fact a very small percentage of sites claim the largest user numbers). Rushing to claim these very valuable digital property/domains (I would assume for the sake of future profits), would be creating a great barrier for these sites and services to make the switch and bring in with them their valuable loyal users, which we want, increasing the overall value of Safenet.
WE WILL SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT if we are greedy and shortsighted.
Therefore, I propose that all current registered domains on clearnet are reserved by maidsafe or other trusted party, and provided to their current owners at their request, without an expiration date and free of charge (or applying a cost based, processing fee structure).
Facilitating user adoption should be a priority if we want to reach a network effect large enough to diminish the risk of a hard fork by a consortium of parties (like current domain registers and tech behemoths like google, apple, facebook and such, or major media publishers and media companies). Excluding or creating barriers to port or mirror clearnet content to safenet will greatly decrease its value. Users go where the content is, let’s not create barriers for that content to be present in safenet.
(and by the way, hardforks of safenet would not be the end of the word, I would guess users would just adapt and have a varying percentage of vaults farming for different networks until a significant network effect develops on one of them). But safecoin ecosystem value would probably reflect such schisms).