@arhag here are some more thoughts about your proposed hierarchy:
* The "no TLD" default mode for our master sales model has usability problems because all browsers nowadays have omnibars (I use mine all the time). So whatever the master sales model is, it needs its own dedicated TLD. Suppose just for this post that we call it ".agent"
* I think having ".p2p" as the "meta-TLD / ICANN replacement" reads like a type error. Since you'd have to type the full sub-TLD every time, and it is unambiguous with just the sub-TLD, there wouldn't actually be any .p2p domains. It would be either "name.agent" or "name.own", which are both implicitly "name.agent.p2p" and "name.own.p2p".
* The solution where most ".p2p" names are from the agent model, but a few are reserved for other models, is also a mental type error. Imagine explaining "example.own.p2p was sold via ownership model, but example.pwn.p2p is a subdomain of a name sold via cost carrying model"
In conclusion, I think this is the correct thing to do:
BlockchainDNS ("decentralized ICANN")
.own ownership model
.web cost-carrying model
.key KeyID
But it seems like a shame to not use ".p2p" and so I think we should "waste" it, giving us these options:
BlockchainDNS
.own
.p2p
.key
OR
BlockchainDNS
.p2p
.web
.key
I prefer the 2nd one.