Just taking this line of thinking a little further, and to paint a wee bit of a picture of sort of thing we should be conceptualising.
Here are the elements that could comprise each site, and allow each of those questions above to be answered in a way that could make squatting and impersonation, well, ab almost irrelevant niche sport. Picture this…
Public Name
The main bit we’ve been discussing of course, but in this overall mix, it’s only part of the identity of the site. It’s necessary though, as a unique human readable alternative to the incomprehensible XOR Address. And not only that, it’s digestible by screen readers and the like.
I think it should be permanent, and not temporary though… bearing in mind it will also be used for Safecoin payments, so you could consider it like a bank account number, not something you want to change hands without your consent.
But anyway, this is just one part of the site’s identity, and how you differentiate it from others, it just happens to be unique.
Site Title
This is what the owner of the site wants to call it. I doesn’t need to be unique though, but paired with the Public Name, and combined with the Pet Name builds the identity of the site.
Pet Name
It’s been discussed a bit before alongside NRS, but often as an either/or rather than complementary. But this really could work.
If you imagined the Site Title as what how the site owner want it to be identified—a suggestion—the Pet Name is how I or my friends, or the wider community, choose to think of this site, what it’s actually known as. In fact, it could be that the Site Name becomes editable within the browser itself, blurring the lines between the two, and becoming a single field, and what predominant value that you type in the browser address bar.
The Pet Names given to sites could also be aggregated among groups of friends, or communities, or lists I subscribe too.
Pet Names are powerful because they also allow for language and naming to change and evolve over time, which is exactly what language should do.
These three elements, Public Name, Site Name, and Pet Name`, are the elements that would allow a site to be Findable, and communicable.
Publisher SafeID:
When it comes to a user verifying that the site is what they are after, either before or during their visit, then the SafeID becomes a great tool. First of, it will allow me to see a profile to provide additional context, and an overall smell test. Does this person, or entity, have a history? What other sites have they published to? etc.
Flags
We could provide a system of flags too, to work in a decentralised, community/group driven basis. Is this site trusted by my other friends? Has it been marked as offensive, misleading, or a scam?
Associated clearnet sites
Taking inspiration from @drehb’s comment, we could create a tool for validating publisher’s site assets on the clearnet. A code snippet which gets added to a cleanet site, with keys that validate the owner of both sites, and vice versa.
This could form part of profile of a site, or extra metadata accessible from the address bar, that says the owner of safe://google123 also runs http://google.com.
Site/page History
When you are on the site, and browsing the content, then of course perpetual data allows you to roll back through the history of the page, which can be useful verifying its provenance
XOR Address
And then of we have the raw address of the data. Which perhaps is the least useful part, but of course it is unique, and the user could potentially see the history of its association with a Public Name and how this might have changed over time.
You could think of the identity of a site overall in the same way you would users on say Facebook, or people IRL.
There might be dozens of Jim Collinsons out there, but you can find the right me pretty quickly through number of other factors, such as my popularity (or not 
), my face, my history, location, stuff i’ve said elsewhere, whether friends say I’m a criminal etc.
How exactly all this plays out in the UI is up for grabs of course. It sounds like it might be cumbersome, but it needn’t be. Most of it could be done through a fuzzy search in the address bar, with additional prompts with varying levels of interruption depending on the nature of the metadata, and the user’s preferences.
I’d argue we should be thinking in terms of the full picture like this, rather than how we can hack at a single parameter, to get the Safe Network to fit within the existing web model, or expectations.