The way you present this makes it appear that it would only be more attractive for name squatters… and no-one likes them… leeching off other people is not a useful contribution.
Flexibility is more attractive than creating artificial limits to satisfy notions of greed… you present this as for the Maidsafe Foundation but how would it not be all profit to the name squatter that grabs them first? BitShares already suffered a run of that nonsense from some dull namewhale.
Having such exclusive names, as you’ve suggested before, seems like a liability. If there are multiple substantial interests with the same names, why not just allow them all to be happy? If they want to register multiple instances to map onto their nonSAFEnet urls, they can do that… if the SAFE names allow that normal format as suggested above.
If there is to be an exclusive name offered that would need managing, the simplest way I can think of is allowing only those who can prove ™ in a standard domain like (.uk) and that still seems like a headache. The alternate is to make the price across the board so expensive as to make name squatting impractical but that just creates an answer to an anticipated problem, which is always a bad idea.
Perhaps if user can prove ownership of nonSAFEnet url, then they can get the SAFE url for free or set fee… something that strips out the risk of it becoming contentious. That could be done with them adding a http header or file to their site, something like OpenID does.