Present: Barish, Dugan, Foster, Raubenheimer, Takasaki, Walker, Yokoya, Hronek (sec.)

Absent: Takasaki

Guest: WWW Study Leaders –Richard; Brief meeting with the RDR and DCB leaders

WWS (F Richard) 

Due to a scheduling conflict, Hitoshi Yamamoto (MDI) could not attend the meeting. Francois Richard attended, and requested information regarding the organization of the ILC workshop in Valencia (6-10-Nov-2006). After some discussion it was agreed that a 4½ day workshop would be required for the ILC activities. (This workshop will be the 3 rd ILC Workshop, following after KEK and Snowmass.) Brian Foster will act as GDE EC liaison to the workshop It was noted that FALC had requested a meeting at that time. They are likely to be present during the summary talks on Friday..

Richard reported that the WWS will be sending a letter to the C.E.R.N. Council Strategy Group.

Richard reported that the Si detector group had produced a coarse cost estimate (~0.5 B$) which was publicly available on the web. Some discussion followed as to whether such information should be publicly available at this time and some concern was expressed. Richard requested written guidelines for costing the detectors and publication of the resulting numbers. The costing guidelines (for the machine) will be available shortly and can be used as guidance for the detectors, as well. For the RDR itself, there will not be too much detail of the costs (top-level roll-up only), but details may be required for subsequent reviews. All agreed that costs (in general) should not be publicly discussed .

Discussions with DCB

The following points were discussed with the DCB:

• WBS is now in good shape but is not exactly ‘geographically organised’ as per the EC request. The WBS can in principle now be released. Details from the RDR groups will be submitted (in any format) to Bialowons who will maintain the single master file.
• It was noted that Susanna Guiducci had offered that INFN could do the cost estimate for the DR 650MHz RF system.
• Discussion was held on the criticality of providing the costing guidelines. DCB had already discussed 23 costing points and this could be converted to guidelines. A timescale of 2 weeks was indicated and the EC expressed concern over this slow schedule.
• It is important to have a construction schedule for the costing exercise. A 7 year construction schedule has been proposed, which can be used as a model. It was agreed to adopt this proposal. It was noted that once we have the costs available to us, the schedule can be reviewed and cost-optimised – or alternatively the cost of a more aggressive construction schedule can be estimated.

Meeting with RDR board (only Bill Willis present)

Bill Willis brought up the following points:

• The R&D WBS will be supported by the CERN tool together with manpower support from DESY. Everybody is happy with this solution. The RDB have identified some ~500 R&D items which they have prioritized into their ‘ideal ILC programme’. Asked if there were any on-going items that did not appear in the ideal program, Willis reported yes there were a few, but he felt they were not contentious (or major).
• Currently the RDB are attaching institutes to the R&D items in the WBS (i.e. those institutes that are currently working on these topics, either collaboratively or competitively). BW requested that the Regional Directors to sign-off on the lists when they are complete.
• BW reported that there were few gaps in the ideal program compared to the current on-going R&D, but that was perhaps not surprising given the ‘experts in the field’ who had put the list together.
• The RDB believes that all the bases have been covered, but there is concern whether the current (or foreseen) programmes fit together with our aggressive schedule. This is particularly worrisome with respect to the SCRF. A clear set of ‘goals and deliverables’ for the TDR phase (and beyond) are required to judge the programs. Ultimately this will allow the RDB to identify resource problems. BW noted that (for example) the TTF is an ‘underused resource’ due to lack of manpower to run shifts.
• The RDB propose to update the R&D schedules every four months, as this fits with the current strategy for the GDE meetings.
• BW suggested that some sort of external ‘review’ of the ideal program might be beneficial, given that it reflects the view of those already closely involved with the R&D. BB suggested that the ILCSC MAC may be the appropriate body.
• BW noted that klystron development was perhaps the most noticeable and critical ‘hole’ in the ideal R&D program.
• SCRF test facilities: concerns were again raised with ‘schedule’ of programs. DESY and JLAB have the current infrastructures, and as pointed out above, DESY (at least) is currently underused..
• There was a brief discussion on conflicts of interest with the board members while prioritizing the R&D. BW feels that this was not an issue, quoting the surprising number of ‘low priority’ items that were identified.
• BW noted that there needs to be clarification between R&D and industrialization (the latter generally being expensive). A question was raised to the DCB (PG) as to how to deal with R&D in the cost estimating.
• Detectors: some discussion was had as to how we will include the detector R&D. BW noted that Chris Damerell had presented a clear picture of the world-wide detector R&D effort, but that it does not lend itself particularly well to current approach being taken for the machine R&D..
• As a final comment, it was agreed that before making a coherent R&D programme it is first necessary to identify what deliverables are required to ‘demonstrate readiness’ for construction.

EC Closed Session

• Vancouver agenda: 4½ days were agreed. The opening plenary should be ‘backward looking’ while the closing summary must be ‘forward looking’.
• Fumihiko Takasaki will be stepping down as Asia Regional Director (ARD). He will continue to act as ARD until 1 st April.
• Public minutes from last EC meeting were agreed upon.
• ILC MAC meeting: BB reported that the ILC MAC review will take place on the 6-7 th April directly after the DoE US ILC R&D program review. Those required to attend are the EC, and possible the heads of the GDE boards. BB has requested a charge for the MAC.
• Final version of Rivkin reply is available.
• P5 committee requires a forward looking 2 year R&D program for the ILC. Even though this is a U.S. request, the GDE needs to develop an integrated global plan

Next meeting: Wednesday 22 nd March