Memorandum of Understanding

among

The Laboratory A,

The Laboratory B,

The Laboratory C

and

The Laboratory D

 

Date (10 February, 2004 Draft)

(including GDO Charter)

 

1               Introduction

 

1.1           General Description

 

In response to the worldwide desire of particle physics community to further the investigation of TeV region physics[refs], for over ten years major laboratories around the world have put substantial R&D efforts into the development of the technology to build a 500 GeV to 1 TeV electron-positron linear collider for more than 10 years. This R&D has included substantial engineering efforts and has led to a number of test facilities (NLCTS, ATF, and TTF). Major resources have been devoted to the technical preparation.

 

[The references need to go back more than 10 years, or the “worldwide desire which motivated the “substantial R&D” is not apparent. Why not the whole sequence of LCWS workshops, from Saariselka 1991, as well as the ACFA, ECFA and HEPAP statements, plus the consensus document?]

 

These developments have led to design reports, including cost estimates, in Asia, Europe, and the U.S. The intention of the International Linear Collider Steering Committee (ILCSC) is to have an International Technology Recommendation Panel (ITRP) make a recommendation before the end of 2004 on the choice of technology (‘warm’ or ‘cold’) based on these developments.

 

The Linear Collider in the energy range of 500 GeV to 1 TeV is complementary to the LHC now under construction at CERN in its capability to advance the frontier of particle physics. Furthermore, the Linear Collider’s value will be enhanced if its physics program runs in parallel with the program at the LHC. For this reason, the community is very eager to move swiftly as soon as the technology choice is made and prepare for an early start of the construction of the International Linear Collider (ILC), while governments are discussing the formal international organization for the ILC.

 

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes a framework of collaboration among the Laboratory A, Laboratory B, Laboratory C, and Laboratory D, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”, to work jointly on the development of a Global Design for the International Linear Collider.

 

This agreement among the Parties is made in the context of initiating an international collaboration, and is not exclusive; other laboratories or universities may join at any time as additional signatoriesy of this MOU.

 

The iInitial task to be undertaken under this MOU is the to founding of the Global Design Organization (GDO) for the Linear Collider, and to proceed with the development of the Conceptual Design Report (CDR), with R&D work needed to complete the Technical Design Report (TDR), and then the completion of the TDR with a reliable estimate of costs and schedule estimate. The ILCSC, representing ICFA, will serve as the oversight group for founding and the initial phase of the GDO’sits operation. ILCSC will also function as the point of contact with regional steering committees and governments. Definition of the scope of work of the GDO (to be defined by ILCSC) and the institutional obligation of the Parties for this collaboration is the responsibility of the ILCSC, and will be found (in this MOU and future Amendments to it) or (in the separate documents).

 

This MOU establishes an understanding of the collaborative effort among the laboratories. It does not constitute a legal contractual obligation on the part of any of the institutions. The Parties’ rights and obligations in carrying out the tasks are governed by their contractual agreement with respective funding agencies and/or the controlling regulation of respective governments.

 

1.2           Objective

 

The objective of this MOU is to document the terms of agreement among Parties under which task of the collaboration is to be performed with regard to the ILC GDO.

 

1.3           Scope

 

1.3.1      To agree to the foundation of the GDO as an interregional design center,

1.3.2      To support personnel made available to GDO,

1.3.3      To provide common funds to support the GDO Central Team Director and the Central Team’s activities,

1.3.4      To participate in activities of the Central Team,

1.3.5      To undertake R&D and pre-industrialization activities, and

1.3.6      To support the cost estimating effort.

 

2               General Provisions

 

2.1           Terms and Conditions

 

The Laboratory A is managed and operated by the A-Laboratory Science Associate under contract with DOE, number DE-XXXXXXX. All work performed by the Laboratory A as part of the ILC Collaboration will be consistent with the terms and conditions of their contract.

 

The Laboratory B is an independent research organization fully supported by the government of YYY. All work performed by the Laboratory B as part of the ILC Collaboration will be consistent with the rules and regulation of the government.

 

The Laboratory C is -------------------------------

 

Etc. --------------------

 

2.2           Funding

 

Until the time when the governments begin formal funding for the ILC Project, the activities of the GDO will have to be supported by existing funding at the institutions involved in this collaboration. Apportionment of common funds to avarious collaborating institution will be determined by negotiations between the institution and ILCSC.

 

2.3           Ownership of Equipment

 

All equipments purchased orf fabricated using funds from an institutional will be the property of that institution and shall be subject to the property management system of that institution. All equipment purchased or fabricated by an institution and incorporated in the LIC prototype will come under the control of the owner of the prototype until it is deemed by him/her that such equipment is no longer needed.

 

2.4           Intellectual Property

 

“Intellectual Property” includes but is not limited to inventions, technical data, and software. Intellectual property created exclusively by one Party shall be exclusively the intellectual property of that Party. Intellectual property created jointly by collaboration among the Parties shall be the joint intellectual property of Parties involved.

 

Each Party hereto shall have, with regard to both intellectual property exclusively developed by the other Party and intellectual property jointly developed, a non exclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid up (royalty free) right and license to the noncommercial use of that intellectual property in the design, construction, and operation of a linear collider, or in such other noncommercial application(s) as may be desired by either Party.

 

Right with regard to commercialization of exclusively developed or created intellectual property is retained by the Party that exclusively developed or created that intellectual property; commercialization of intellectual properteriphery jointly developed or created by Parties shall be jointly pursued.

 

Since this is an international MOU, we may need to have an agreement on how to resolve any dispute related to the intellectual property. [Could ask IUPAP to nominate an arbitrator]

 

2.5           Scientific Publication

 

All work covered by this MOU will be unclassified. Publication will be collaborative, although either Party has the right to publish information in part or in whole, independent of the other. All publications and all intellectual property developed under this collaboration using funds of a certain institution are subject to the procedures of that institution and to the rules and regulations of its funding agency.

 

2.6           Amendments

 

This MOU may be modified or amended from time to time by written agreement of all Parties.

 

3               Plan of Work

 

3.1           Statement of Work

 

Under this Memorandum of Understanding, Parties will carry out activities listed in Section 1.3. The general scope of the specific effort by a certain institution will be determined by the GDO Central Team Directorate, and will be requested by the Central Team Director.

 

(The scope will then be incorporated in the Section 3.2 as an amendment.)

or

(The Central Team Director and the representative of the institution involved will sign a separate implementing agreement that documents the agreed-upon scope of work.)

 

4               Execution

 

4.1           Effective Date

 

This MOU shall become effective upon the latter [not clear what this means] dates of signature of the Parties. It shall remain in effect until superseded or amended, or five years from the effective date, which ever comes first.

 

 

 

Annex I

 

Once agreed to the GDO Charter, i.e. GDO Task Force Report

Goes here
Appendix 1

 

Members of the ILCSC Task Force:

 

Jonathan Dorfan:　　　 Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, U.S.A.,

Brian Foster:　　　　　　　 Oxford University, UK,

Won Namkung:　　　　　 Pohang University of Science and Technology, Korea,

Satoshi Ozaki:　　　　　　 Brookhaven National Laboratory, U.S.A. (Chair),

Yoji Totsuka:　　　　　　 High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Japan,

Albrecht Wagner:　　　 Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Germany.

　　　　　　　　　　　

The Task Force held telephone conferences on:

11 September, 14 October, and 13 November in 2003,

8 January, 19 January, and 3 February in 2004,

 

The Task Force met physically in Paris on:

19 November, 2003, in conjunction with the ILCSC meeting, and

on 11 February 2004, before the ILCSC meeting.

 

 

Members of the Sub-group:

David Burke, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, U.S.A.,

Michael Harrison, Brookhaven National Laboratory, U.S.A. (Secretary),

Theodore Lavine, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, U.S.A.

Satoshi Ozaki, Brookhaven National Laboratory, U.S.A. (Chair)

Franz Peters, Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Germany

Junji Urakawa, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Japan

Nicholas Walker, Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Germany

Kaoru Yokoya, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Japan

　　　　　　　　　　　

The Subgroup met at BNL on December 3-5, 2003.

 

Note on the Sub-group:

 

In the process of its deliberations, the Task Force came to a realization that it is important to understand what have been considered to be the pre-construction activities and expenses, and what have been considered to be the construction activities by the different regions. It was thought that the way to proceed with this issue is to establish a subgroup of experts from three regions who really worked on their cost estimate, and let them carry out the comparison of the bases for their cost estimate of a linear collider prepared by KEK, DESY, and SLAC. It was thought that this comparison would reveal the critical differences in the ways different regions proceeded in planning a major construction project, and thus would provide the means to develop a global procedure for the ILC Project. This, in any means, does not mean that this sub-group of people should re-do the cost estimate, nor should give an opinion on either the basis correctness of the cost figure developed by the regions.

 

Appendix 2

 

Guidelines for International Linear Collider Cost Estimation  

 

1)    Cost estimation shall be done in person-hours, and use direct costs for purchased items.  

2)    Support costs such as administrative and management functions should be included as person-hour estimates.

3)    Labor categories (e.g. scientific/professional, technician, and administrative) should be distinguished for costing purposes.

4)    The estimate should also take into account that a certain fraction of the regional funding will need to be transferred to the central management as a common fund (the rate to be determined).

5)    The common funds should cover the support of the Construction Management Team Directorate, including their salaries and benefits, the Central Team’s local support costs, and funds to cover unexpected expenses (contingency).

6)    On-site support costs such as the cost of incidental materials cost, space charges, communication expenses, and transportation should also be covered by common funds.

7)    The cost estimate shall be done in fixed-year currency units (¥, $, €, or ILC Monetary Unit).

8)    Cost profiles will be determined by the master schedule (See Section 6 for a possible schedule) recognizing that the associated budget authority profile may differ from country to country.

9)    The approach to the indirect cost (e.g., benefit etc), escalation, and contingencies associated with the various risks involved in the fabrication of sub-systems can be handled in the customary fashion of the country responsible for that sub-system.