I think “occupant” or “resident” are both better choices over “owner” for how this conceptually works.
If a family live in the house, then a child of the family could certainly invite a vampire in, despite the child not being the “owner”.
This.
It’s normal here (UK) to write “not at this address” and put it in a postbox. It will be returned for free, and this specific wording lets the sender know it was rejected because the person doesn’t live there anymore (rather than because you’re simply rejecting it)
The idea there should be some definitive, canonical domain for the Fediverse is somewhat at odds with the core tenents of the Fediverse itself - decentralisation, and no single point of ownership or control. And on that basis, we absolutely should not care about a particular domain, or assign any level of ‘specialness’ to it.
I understand your worry - that some ‘bad actor’ could buy the domain and do something anti-Fediverse with it and mislead the public, but my response would be to simply not worry. The strength of the Fediverse is that we are diverse and unbothered by whatever nonsense some centralised platform is trying to pull. We don’t have a profit motive. We don’t care.
People who want to find the real Fediverse will absolutely still find us, all on their own, regardless of who owns some random domain :)
I’d argue no, because they are not a resident. They are only a visitor.
Occupant in a housing sense is pretty synonymous with Resident legally, but in a wider sense can also mean “anyone there at the time” - especially in non-housing contexts (e.g. the occupants of a vehicle). So for the sake of eliminating all ambiguity I’d strike out Occupant, and stick with Resident as the most appropriate term.