(Catching up on my mail from New Zealand, where the food and scenery are first rate, but the quality of the net connections are as usual inversely proportional to the quality of the scenery.) I get a large sense of deja vu listening to the meeting venue arguments, because they are very similar to the ones the IETF deals with. The IETF also has about three meetings a year, about the same size as the ICANN meetings, with similar issues of geographical diversity, sponsorship, and cost, along with a need to have better net connections than most venues normally provide. The IETF cares about affordability because they charge meeting fees that must cover costs, and there are still a fair number of attendees who pay their own way. It's not identical, but it's close. Their approach is much like what Evan suggests. They pick the general locations three years out, and pick the exact venues more than a year out. They try to get sponsors and usually do, but they don't hold up the logistics waiting for sponsors. They recently made a deal with a large hotel chain (Hilton, I think) so they use that chain's hotels when there's a suitable one in the desired location. It also means that they try to return to places that have worked well, rather than having each meeting be a leap into the unknown. None of this is secret, it's reported extensively on their lists. Look at what they did recently when the hotel in Vancouver, the same one ICANN used a couple of years ago, reneged on their pledge not to schedule construction during the meeting. R's, John