Present: B. Barish, T. Raubenheimer, G. Dugan, B. Foster, N. Walker, K. Yokoya, M. Nozaki, M. Hronek (sec)

Announcements: none

Action Items:

• RDR Mgmt
  • Discussion of SLAC meeting being used as a formal internal cost review. Meeting extended by one day Dec. 14-16.

• Valencia – Brian
  • • Nick and Max to discuss issues for the meeting
    • Proceed with the contacting the RDR leaders
    • B. Warmbein to help Max during the meeting

• Beijing – Kaoru
  • No news

• DESY LCWS 07 – Brian
  • No news

• Fermilab Meeting
  • October 2007 dates being discussed

• MAC Meeting
  • Barry received preliminary report but cannot circulate
  • Waiting on the final version
  • We will need to give preliminary response at the ILCSC meeting in November. It can be briefer than long narrative for first MAC meeting.

• Discusson of coming meeting of Barry with Roberto Petronzio (FALC, Chair)
  • Discussion of:
    • Common Funds
    • Resources for EDR
    • Authority
    • Subgroup and governance
    • Memo on SCRF - can this do us any good?

What is the timeline?

1-2 years but no timeline is set yet. This is in proposal stage. This is meant to be very international. It can be very good for us. Better if internationally organized but FALC cannot do it.

• • • Meet with Chris Damerell regarding proposal to institute detector R&D reviews. Somewhat controversial in the physics community. This proposal needs GDE and perhaps support from FALC.

• Site Proposals
  • Hanford letter; this is independent of us. Informed that proposals will be considered after the RDR only. Similar information given to Russian proposal.
  • US interest is at FNAL
  • Shallow site possibilities not yet worked in detail, but deferred until after the RDR complete.
  • We need to better understand the costs of a shallow site.
    • Shafts are very expensive; re-look at the FNAL shallow site based on the proton driver; equal or more expensive than deep site. Shallow site – just FNAL or worldwide? This issue is off the table until after the RDR.

• Reducing Costs
  • Strategy is being created somewhat adhoc. Question is “are we doing it right”?
  • Revisit cost rules: we need to be careful. If we go with “need to know”, this needs planning. This maybe difficult that some can know costs and some cannot. Never understood with CF&S, why is there such a hard-line? More concern with DESY is SCRF. Not a problem with CF&S numbers shared.
  • What is it we are trying to defend? Is it offset of bids – CF&S is not such a concern.
  • There is jeopardy of CF&S #’s and others. We need restrictions and some discretion. We need to vet our own #’s before we go public. We let PG give guidance as “need to know.”
  • We need to get Japanese to review cryomodule cost. Very difficult.
  • Need to respect the difference system, but Japanese input in useful.
  • All CF&S costs are in house or consult firm. This is independent and not contracted. EU and US work this way. Do not know about Japan.
  • We will maintain our formal policies – need to know basis.
  • Reaction is positive to cost cutting studies; mgmt brd must be proactive in finding more ways to reduce costs. Meet w/ RDR board and go thru the WBS – what really needs to be there? Contingency plan if we don’t reach 30% - next scope reduction. Bit more organization is needed.
  • Huge leverage w/cryomodule costs. Who’s tracking this and how are we doing? This needs to be monitored.
  • We are waiting on info from CA. CA to attend RDR meeting next week.

Other Items:

• TR – Alignment questions; were do they fit in? Told them not to worry.
• BB – new WBS should include them
• NW – is 1% right? CERN gave a larger #
• BF – Oxford thinks the # is too high
• TR – should be significantly reduced to 1%. Agree to reduce.
• BF – this is a big mess. Needs proper organization.

Next Meeting
5-OCT-06