For the avoidance of doubt, I’m pro <something> name too, it’s just what that something is.
Not to make this debate circle continuously, but I still think from an end user POV, domain name will be the most understandable and usable descriptor.
It may seem, from the bald historic technical internet etymology, to be the incorrect descriptor, but that’s not how language works. It’s fluid and ever-changing, and is defined by the parties using it, not by a central authority (sorry, couldn’t help that 
). I mean, December ain’t the tenth month folks.
But I do think it’ll fit the understanding of domain name by existing definition.
“A domain name is an identification string that defines a realm of administrative autonomy, authority or control within the Internet.”
I think this is how users will perceive it. By registering a name, it, and all its paths and subnames will come under my administrative control. I will own it, and be in charge of what data it points to. I’ll be able to allow people access, and even transfer ownership in the future too. It’ll be part of my dominion. On the old web, I used to have to buy/rent/be granted access—but on SAFE, I can own my own little space, my domain, and I can use it for what I want, when I want.
Incidentally, I think if we do end up having two separate namespaces for safeid: and safe: I think perhaps the language might become a touch easier, and maybe public name becomes more workable for the safe: side of things. Although I think we are still on early days for that decision, and it definitely shouldn’t be based on this discussion of terminology!
Either way NRS would work as the system, and it leaves scope for the descriptor to be added depending on the context.
I’m glad you do what you do and hope in the end this discussion will result in a state with which everyone can live 
