@feelz, so, what if we make what they want trivial? Then there would be no incentive to waste effort doing this or that as brainstormed above.
We take the globally unique human-readable namespace off the table, and then any one entity’s credibility would not be judged by their name, but rather by their goods/service/content/etc.
So the independent artist doesn’t have as much right to a given name as a large corporation? Or why would a business be the only one to have a vested interest in finding their specific name? This is not dealing with squatting at all at this point. Now it is oppression. Plus you’ve just made it more difficult for the average user to get a name. No, this will not work.
While your suggestion does help the network maintain it’s infrastructure, the goal of the network is to have it be fueled by excess space and bandwidth, not sponsored.
This also has the chance of namespace take-overs, just like in @Seneca’s Continuous Auction proposal. This type of system gives too much power to moneyed interests.
My stance is that both the first-come first-served and the wealth/power/might makes right stances are inadequate to form a fair, unbiased namespace.
I’ll assert once again that in reality - in nature - all names are relative.