If " .COM makes up 73% of all gTLD domain names" and “40% of all domain names” (I have not verified these claims but I have no reasons to believe they aren’t accurate), then you can’t simply play it down to a matter of your preference: users’ preference (or better: habit) is to fill in “.com” if they’re unsure about the TLD of the domain they’re looking for. You may hate it, but that’s it. You may try to educate your audience… maybe, but only if you’re somewhat already established. People don’t like to change habits and be told what their preference should be (I’m still resisting the whole hostballs demise myself); also it won’t be nice to have a competing domain with a .com TLD anyway, even if you haven’t set up a “COMmercial” site. Competing “general purpose” gTLDs are somewhat looked with suspicion from some (most?) users (ex: .xyz), they aren’t “perceived” trustworthy even if technically nothing changes.
Exceptions do exist: specialized sites, regional sites, and “domain hacks” too. Domain hacks are another example of how the original “intended purpose and meaning” of a TLD doesn’t really matter. The current main widespread usage of .CO and .IO ccTLDs should make it pretty clear
I, for one, would welcome a 70% price increase if domain squatting and forever parked domains were going to be effectively purged and persecuted in the .com realm.
ICANN is nonprofit + it is a monopoly
What this means is, with the more .com domains registered, the price should go down instead of up. If it does go up, it should be very clear what they need the money for.
There are 144mil .com domains registered atm. So the ICANN budget is huge as it is.
Verisign has been pushing this for at least a year, it isn’t exactly coming out of the blue; and it all started with the US Dept. of Commerce lifting a price hike ban. Domainnamewire also points to a form prepared by the Internet Commerce Association but I believe more in a revoked Brexit than in a revoked price hike tbqhfam