> I would think of names as a socially agreed upon convention that can live entirely in digital space with no knowledge of meatspace.

Then there is no protection from name squatting

> I don’t see any reason that Apple Inc should necessarily own the name “Apple”, but in an open market they might be able to pay more than “Farmer John’s Apple Orchard, Inc.” to purchase that scarce digital asset from a previous owner.

This is literally name squatting. 

 meaning it’s obvious to you which of the two hypothetical parties should own it? who is name squatting in this example? 

 if Farmer John Apple can take the name Apple, so does a bot. And if it's possible with one, it's possible with all names. 

 I’m interested in thinking about ways of using digital scarcity (that we already have present in bitcoin) to prevent bots from taking all available names, while allowing Farmer John Apple to express their interest/demand for that specific name because of its relevance to their business.