It would work without this type of domination victory. That's what I figured out.
No, it wouldn't. I've found that even with unchanged resource settings, I rarely start in a spot that
doesn't have horses, iron or both within range of my capital city. Going for a resource monopoly victory based on those, which is probably the quickest and easiest, literally means going for a domination victory. Changing resource distribution so that capital cities are less likely to get strategic resources just means crippling warfare in the early game, or giving certain civs an unfair advantage because they happened to settle their second city near horses or iron when their enemies weren't so lucky.
I think it would be fun. If you are aiming for this type of victory, you just better send one or two caravel early to prevent this type of frustration to happen, depending on the size of the map.
Don't get me wrong, I like games that climb all the way up the tech tree, but if players
can't explore a certain area - say, it's blocked off by a hostile empire that refuses to give open borders - you're just forcing players to sit on their thumbs and wait, or just go for another victory type.
Furthermore, right now, it's possible to get at least a domination and cultural victory fairly early on in the game, with diplomatic and space race for the lategame. Resource Monopoly would be all over the place; on a Pangaea map, anyone trying to go for a resource monopoly would get a domination victory before they succeed, but on a Terra-type map (where everyone starts on one continent and the other one is inaccessible until Astronomy - can't remember if it's Terra or not) you're forcing players to wait until the Renaissance just to go for the final resources on the other continent. In the meantime, if they've been diligent about getting the resources on their own continent,
they've already won a domination victory.
Who thinks having no aluminium in the late game is fun ? By the way, the ressources, even balanced, are always subject to a type of randomness. Depends on what the developers allow. It could be just as in Civ5, with many types of ressources all over the world sometimes and sometimes just in some locations. It could be like basic ressources Civ5 (like cows or horses). Or it could be between the two.
Having no aluminium in the late game is fun in that it presents more of a challenge. You can't field the better aircraft or Modern Armour, but you can work around that using basic units like Fighters, Bombers, Mechanised Infantry and Mobile SAMs. Earlier on, if you don't have Iron, you can field Spearmen and Pikemen supported by Archers and Crossbows. Sure, you're more vulnerable to civs that do have aluminium or iron, but that doesn't mean they get an instant win over you. It just means you'll have to try harder, and finally overcoming them will feel like more of a victory than just mopping up AI civilisation #472.
I could also turn this around; who thinks making players wait till Satellites before their victory becomes viable is fun?, but I already addressed that above. Also, the randomness you're referring to isn't quite that random - like I said, I hardly build a capital that doesn't have access to at least one strategic resource. If it's truly made more random, or more "realistic", you're giving certain civs unfair advantages, whether based on start bias or just because of random starting location distribution.
If ressouces are realistically dispatched, it should not really happen that an AI has all the ressources without actively looking for it.
The AI isn't that great at..... well, anything. Getting an AI to actively look for resources isn't as easy as just making resource distribution more "realistic". It'd just cripple AI civs even more, as they completely fail to acquire certain important resources.
Precisely, that type of victory would prevent cheap capital wins. It would be like total conqust revisited, or a mix between total conquest and Civ5 domination.
The way you've laid it out, resource monopoly wouldn't prevent "cheap capital wins", it
encourages it. Think about it for a minute; adding a resource monopoly victory wouldn't remove domination victory, yet you're almost certain to get a domination victory while you're trying to get a resource monopoly.

Let supply and demand influence how much gold you get for Iron depending on how much unused Iron there is in the game, and how much every player has, if you have half of the iron in the world should you be able to demand more gold for it.
Let certain wonders/national wonders have resource requirements, make iron works better or drop the build workshops req, and let it instead require 4 iron and one coal. Or you could intriduce new wonders called Ironcorporation, Horse Tradin Inq., Big Oil, Coal & Sons and so on, which each require 51% of a each resouce. And of course should give a huge gold bonus.
The problem with this is that it's a doublewin mechanic. You're letting players who already have a significant advantage over everyone else (51% of any strategic resource in the world) get an even bigger advantage.
----------
I have two points I want to make here, separately from the replies above. First, the raison d'être of the resource monopoly victory. Right now, all victory types are unique in their own way, and going for one of them automatically closes off at least one or two others. Conquering your way across the world for a Domination victory makes your Policies so expensive you can't realistically get a cultural victory anymore, and you're likely to destroy everyone long before the UN or the spaceship can even be built. Buying your way into good relations with City-States for a Diplomatic victory requires so much gold that you'll need a sizeable empire, disqualifying you for Cultural, and spending so much gold on City-States means you can't buy or maintain the army required to go for Domination.
Taking the above into account, what
is a resource monopoly victory? Well, it automatically includes conquering vast swathes of the world just to get your hands on resource sites. Once you're going down that route, you're probably already going to take a few capitals, and you're highly likely to get a domination victory
anyway because of how most capitals spawn within range of strategic resources and are thus necessary conquests. This means that Resource Monopoly
is Domination, only you're specifically leaving a few capital cities alive
just so you can get a Monopoly instead of a Domination victory. That alone basically removes the entire reason for adding it in the first place.
Secondly, both the basic Resource Monopoly victory Naokaukodem describes, as well as Cyon's doublewin mechanics based on, well, resource monopolies, heavily encourage and support Wide empires, and in Civ 5 as it is, that means ICS. ICS is already a far too powerful strategy, and adding these features would only encourage it even more. I like how Civ 5 makes National Wonders require certain buildings in
every city, rather than just X in the whole empire, and scaling their cost based on how many cities the empire contains; this means that Tall empires are more likely to get these NWs, much cheaper to boot, than Wide empires are, while they provide the same boost. IMNSHO, one of the most important things that needs to be done in Civ 5 is not to penalise Wide empires (though penalising ICS would be a good thing), so much as to promote the viability of Tall ones. The mechanics proposed in this thread are doing the exact opposite; they only encourage Wide empires and ICS even more than the game already does.