Minutes of the Second Telephone Meeting of the Task Force for Pre Global Design Organization for the International Linear Collider　　　　　　　　

October 14, 2003,

09:00 – 11:00 USEDT, 06:00 – 08:00 Pacific DT, 21:00 – 23:00 JST&KST, and 15:00 – 17:00 European DT

Participants: Brian Foster, Jonathan Dorfan, Won Namkung, Satoshi Ozaki, Yoji Totsuka, and Albrecht Wagner.

Agenda Item 1: Minutes of the first telephone meeting:

Comments on the draft minutes have been received from Yoji, Brian, and Albrecht.　 Others should send their comments as soon as possible.　 The Chair will incorporate comments sent to him and will circulate them for final check.

Agenda Item 2: Report from ICFA, ACFA, ECFA and HEPAP:

Recommendations for the members of the International Review Committee (the wise persons’ committee) and two candidates for the chairman, one from their own region and one from another region, are being submitted from the three regions.　 By the end of October, hopefully, the committee will be selected.　 There could be some delay if an agreement cannot be reached readily on the selection of the chair.　 The slate of the 12 members, the committee and the chairman, is expected to be presented to ICFA for its approval soon.　

Agenda Item 3: Overall Concept of the Global Design Organization:

Discussions on this subject began with an introduction to the “draft note” distributed earlier by Satoshi, outlining his thought as to the phased approach of one organization to carry out its mission, with each phase having specific missions and their oversight structure changing at the mid course to reflect the anticipated formal involvement of the governments.

There is a general agreement that the organization in question is to turn the chosen technology quickly (in one year or two) into a “conceptual design” which defines the overall layout and parameters, and which is fully internationally carried out and approved by everybody.　　 However, in the course of the discussion, it became apparent that there is no clear global agreement on how to proceed from there to the actual construction phase, i.e., what constitutes the CDR or its equivalent and TDR or its equivalent, and what are the steps and documentations required by each government for its decision making for the ILC.　　 This latter situation was also acknowledged by the group of governments at its London meeting.　

There is a significant amount of work already done on regional basis on the cost estimate of the R&D phase and construction phase of JLC/GLC. TESLA, and NLC.　 However, it is not clear as to how the costs of the construction related R&D and industrialization are distributed in respective cost estimates.　

Set up a Task Force Sub-Group:

After extensive discussions on the various accounting methods and ways a project is to be mounted in different regions, and adopting a suggestion made by Jonathan that a way to understand these steps is to study the cost profile from now to the completion of the facility, including R&D, it was decided to form, under this Task Force, a sub-group consisting of those people who had really worked on the project planning and cost estimates of the three different linear colliders.　　

Although this could be one of the tasks of the design organization to be formed, this could be a relatively straightforward task if it is undertaken by a few of those who have actually worked in generating these cost figures and profiles.　 It is clear that a good global understanding on this issue is essential to proceed with our task of setting up the design organization.　 Also it will be good if we can present a better and agreed upon sense of what the needed steps are to take in order to reach different crucial phases of the International Linear Collider project before the March meeting of the government group.　

The expectation is that having these people in one room for a few days to discuss what has been done in their planning process will help rationalize these estimates and establish a common understanding about what it will take to bring the ILC to a construction stage.　 It should be noted that the objective of this sub-group is not to re-establish a detailed cost estimate but is to understand and define what should be included in the work related to the completion of the “CDR” phase or its equivalent and in the works needed before the actual construction can begin.　 It will also be useful if one can possibly agree on the fraction of the total construction cost that would be spent for each phase, while separating what is the R&D cost and what is the construction cost.　 We will aim at having one or two meetings to complete this work with at least one meeting before November 19, 2003.　 (Because of the travel schedule, the first meeting is now scheduled for December 3 to 5, 2003.)

Overall consideration on the ILC design organization:

The organizational structure of the GDO (and Pre-GDO) was discussed from many different angles.　 Since this discussion brings about the issues involved in defining a globally agreed way to build the ILC, opinions presented by the Task Force members are summarized below in an abbreviated form:　

· The possibility of setting up this organization, instead of the sub-group, early enough while the technology choice is being made, and let it define what is the CDR and what is the TDR.

· While the Pre-GDO is moving forward as fast as possible to formulate the internationally agreeable concept, parameters, and layout of the machine, and possibly the cost estimate, governments hopefully could sort out their issues and initiate a new international organization to bring the project to the construction-ready status and then to carry out the construction.

· One suspects that it will be difficult to receive a commitment of government funding agencies without a reliable cost estimate based on the TDR that may take three to four years to develop.　

· The phased approach presented in the draft note may be consistent with the US way but the way a project is planned in Europe, and possibly in Japan is somewhat different.

· Are we discussing two organizations with one name?

· The importance of continuity of the technical organization at least to the completion of the TDR.

· One should consider the first two years to be a transitional period, and then get really serious about getting the machine built after that.

· It would be difficult to really set up the construction organization without knowing where it will be built, and there seems to be some desire to delay the site selection.

· The importance of having the same intellectual leadership throughout the design and construction phase, though there is a concern that the best persons to design the best machine may not be the same as those to build the best machine.

· Phase I: A quick start under a loose federation using the existing program and funding.　

Phase II: The metamorphosis of Phase I with a different kind of governmental oversight.　

· What will happen afterwards in the construction is somewhat dependent on when and which government will propose to host the ILC.　 It is hoped in some way that there would be continuity in the effort to refine the design and move toward the construction.　

· In the best of all worlds, we would hope to have the cost with integrity, schedule with integrity and risks known, and would smoothly go into the construction instead of getting into a hiatus while such a host will appear.

· The GDO should be a practical organization that will work on everything that is necessary before the construction, and should be continuous from the CDR to TDR with sufficient R&D.

· It is important to encourage governments to begin formally committing to the ILC hopefully in two years or so, and begin funding even at a relatively low level.

· Our program must take a significant step in 2007 that is induced by the commitment of governments and an increase in funding.

· If initiation of Phase II is directly coupled to government commitment and if one of the governments may chose not to commit at this early stage, the group from that country may have to drop out.　

· If the governments should pass-up the opportunity to get involved in two years, then we will continue with the work keeping the organization in place.　 It, however, is dangerous to set the arrangement of two plus two years a priori.　 After two years we should perform a review of the situation and look around if the governments are ready.　 If so, we will enter into a more formal arrangement.

· What was shown in the figure presented at the Chicago meeting of the ILCSC is that the Central Team would be preserved in going from pre organization to the next organization and the oversight scheme will be changed from the ICFA based informal governance to a government based more formal oversight.　　

· We should be building a Central Team that may last throughout the life of the project, so that we will not lose time, we will not lose commitment, and we can prevent mischief of changing the parameters in mid course.

· One does not want to have a group of people scattering after two years and create a discontinuity.　 However, one should have a build-in check and balance at a certain point.　 Namely, we need to have a serious review point after about two years, and it might lead to a change of the governance structure that governments may impose on us.

· This review can be by the ILCSC/ICFA, which in turn can invite governments to participate in it and express their commitment.　 In fact, there will be on-going dialogues between the scientific community as represented by the ILCSC/ICFA and governments.

· This review might give the group of governments an impetus to initiate their own oversight of the project with their commitment or they may decide to postpone their commitment.

· The review should be after the first two years and every year thereafter, and for each case governments should be invited to step in if they wish.

· Although we would like to make certain that the design organization is moving in the direction we want, this review should be more like a process or managerial review, giving the governments an annual opportunity to step in with their oversight and funding.

In the end, we have come to a reasonable understanding that it is desirable for the design organization, in particular the Central Team, to maintain continuity in terms of its scientific and technical mission.　 The continuity should begin with the first globalization effort for the ILC, shortly after the technology choice, and extend to the completion of the technical design studies, and hopefully to the construction and commissioning, with appropriate evolutions in its mandate and size/strength as needed.　 From a managerial and governance point of view, the organization will begin with an informal oversight of the ILCSC/ICFA supported by the existing funds at the MOU institutions.　　 In later stages, in one year or two, the governance should change to a more formal governmental oversight as the governments will make a commitment to the project and increase the R&D and construction funding.　 The ILCSC/ICFA shall review the organization after about two years and once every year thereafter.　 Although we would like to use this review to make certain that the design organization is moving in the right direction, this review will be more or less managerial in nature, giving the governments an annual opportunity to step in with their oversight and funding commitment.

Authority and Placement of the Central Team:

Jonathan made a motion to discuss these contentious subjects.

The Central Team must have significant responsibility and authority, though technical strength and ability will continue to be in the regional teams and that is where the work will get done.　　 But without the strength and authority, the Central Team will not be able to hold the parameter list and make decisions to advance in the right direction.　 Namely the Central Team must not only be a coordinator but also a promoter with strong teeth.

When about 20 people will be selected for the Central Team and have been entrusted with the outcome of their work together with the Regional Teams, then the choice of where these people are placed must be based on where the team can generate the best design, even though some selection might have some political overtones that might raise some eyebrows.　 From this point of view, it will not be a good idea to exclude KEK, DESY, and SLAC from the candidate venue a priori.　 Considering where people travel to and where technical infrastructure support is amply available, the venue cannot be a remote location and instead should be at a big laboratory.

Yoji expressed his opinion that if there is a council that will oversee and monitor the Central Team, then the Central Team could have significant authority, but not dictatorship.

Albrecht pointed out one example of authority of the central management with ITER, where by agreement under the MOU the central management must sign off the R&D spending at a regional team.　 This is one clear rational behind giving well-defined authority.　 This is not the case of ITER taking money out of the region, but this is to ensure that the money is spent for the agreed upon purposes.　

An example of a working scenario where the authority of the Central Team will play an important role is as follows:

The first task of the Central Team would be to establish an agreed upon parameter list.　 It should then review the existing R&D status and set-up the plan for additional R&D’s needed.　　 As soon as the technology choice is announced, regional laboratories will assess their strength and will express their desires as to what sub-system they are interested in.　　 The task for the Central Team then is to map out the R&D plan over the existing strength of the worldwide laboratories and their interests, and then move the work to the appropriate center of excellence.　 People who are interested in a certain task that went to another center of excellence may have to move to join their effort as a collaborator.　 This is not a trivial task where the Central Team must have authority to deal with the multifaceted desires of regional teams.　 This task must be added to the draft note as the work of the initial phase.

We believe that there is a reasonable consensus on the importance of the Central Team having significant authority to allow it to fulfill its responsibility.　 However, there has to be an oversight and/or monitoring mechanism.　 Yoji suggested a Council and Albrecht suggested a Board of Directors.　 This mechanism should be incorporated in the GDO plan.

As to the venue of the Central Team, Brian noted that there might be significant problems, though not insurmountable, in placing the Central Team at one of the three labs.　 CERN might be a suitable venue for this team, and both the present and the next DGs of CERN are supportive of this notion.　 The Task Force notes this proposal but at this point, there appears to be no need to act on this proposal.

To illustrate a possible difficulty, Yoji made the following observation.　 If the warm technology becomes the choice of the community, then KEK and SLAC would become a pair of competitive laboratories for the Central Team location, because it will have the appearance of being coupled to the site selection.

This is a very important and contentious subject and the discussion will have to continue in the next few meetings.　 For the time being, the Chair will delete the a priori exclusion on his draft note without prejudice against re-introducing it later.　 The Chair believes that if one is to allow one of these laboratories to become the venue for the Central Team, we will have to invent a mechanism to clearly mark that the Central Team is of the international community and is not of the host laboratory.

Agenda Item 4: Cost to complete CDR and TDR?

To be discussed in the Sub-groups

Agenda Item 5: Progress Report and the Final Report:

These reports will be made in time for the November 19, 2003 meeting of the ILCSC in Paris for the progress report and for the February 12 and 13, 2004 ICFA meeting in Paris for the final report.　

Agenda Item 6:

No assignments other than the recommendation of the Sub-Group members were made.

Agenda Item 7: No other business was presented.

Agenda Item 8: Next Meeting:

　

The week of November 3 to7, or November 12 to 14.　 The task Force agreed to use the proposed Schedule 3, below, for the telephone meeting after the daylight savings time discontinues on October 26, 2003.

Schedule 3:　　 13:00 – 15:00 US-PST, Day 1

16:00 – 18:00 US-EST, Day 1

06:00 – 08:00 JST&KST, Day 2

22:00 – 24:00 Euro ST, Day 1

　

Appendix

Agenda of the Second Telephone Meeting:

October 14, 2003

1. Minutes of the first meeting: received input from Yoji, Albrecht, and Brian.

2. Any new situation to be reported: ICFA, ACFA, ECFA, and HEPAP?

3. Discussion on the GDO draft note by S. Ozaki?

Points of discussions:

a. Single design organization instead of two in tandem?

b. Reaction from funding agencies?

c. Should the detector(s) design be included in this organization?

d. Is 18 months long enough to complete the CDR?　 Can it be shorter?

e. Composition and appointment of the Central Team members?

f. Venue for the Central Team location?

4. Cost to complete the CDR and the TDR?

a. Cost to complete the TDR is one of the tasks of the GDO

b. Total cost of R&D for the project?　 (10 – 15% of construction?)

5. Progress Report at Nov. 19 meeting of the ILCSC in Paris and final report at the ICFA meeting on February 12 and 13, 2004 in Paris.　 Task Force meeting in the afternoon of February 12?

6. Make assignments if needed?

7. Any other business?

8. Next meeting?　 Week of November 3 to 7, or November 12 to14.

Since daylight savings time ends on October 26, we may have to readjust the time for the tele-conference.　 Namely we have to select one of the following schedules:

　

Schedule 1:　　　　　 06:00 – 08:00 US-PST, Day 1

09:00 – 11:00 US-EST, Day 1

23:00 – 01:00 JST&KST, Day 1 - 2

15:00 – 17:00 Euro ST, Day 1

or

Schedule 2:　　　　　 05:00 – 07:00 US-PST, Day 1

08:00 – 10:00 US-EST, Day 1

22:00 – 24:00 JST&KST, Day 1 and

14:00 – 16:00 Euro ST, Day 1

or

Schedule 3:　　　　　 13:00 – 15:00 US-PST, Day 1

16:00 – 18:00 US-EST, Day 1

06:00 – 08:00 JST&KST, Day 2

22:00 – 24:00 Euro ST, Day 1