ILC????????

1
ILC????????

• ?????????????
• ?? ??
• ????ILC???
• KEK
• 2006?12?20?

2
(No Transcript)
3
ICFA and the Linear Collider

• ICFA has been helping to guide international
  cooperation on and try to realize the Linear
  Collider more than 10 years .
• Major steps
• 1995 First LC TRC Report, under Greg Loew
  as Chair
• 1999 ICFA Statement on Linear Collider
• 2002 ICFA commissioned the second LC TRC
  Report,
  under Greg Loew as
  Chair
• 2002 ICFA has established the ILC
  Steering Committee (ILCSC) with Maury
  Tigner as the 1st Chair2004
  ILCSC set up ITRP and ICFA/ILCSC have approve
  ITRP recommendation
• 2005 ICFA/ILCSC has established GDE

4
Membership of the ILCSC(Present)
Directors CERN Robert Aymar DESY Albrecht
Wagner Fermilab Pier Oddone KEK Atsuto
Suzuki SLAC Jonathan Dorfan LC Steering Group
Chairs Asian Won Namkung European Torsten
Akesson American Satoshi Ozaki Other Chair(2nd
) Shin-ichi Kurokawa China (IHEP Director)
Hesheng Chen Russia (BINP Director) Alexander
Skrinsky ICFA outside LC regions Vinod
Sahni Asia Rep. Sachio Komamiya Europe
Rep. Francois Richard American Rep. Jim
Brau Secretary Roy Rubinstein
5
ILCSC Charter(2002)

• Engage in outreach, explaining the intrinsic
  scientific and technological importance of the
  project to the scientific community at large, to
  industry, to government officials and politicians
  and to the general public
• Based upon the extensive work already done in the
  three regions, engage in defining the scientific
  roadmap, the scope and primary parameters for
  machine and detector. It is particularly
  important that the initial energy, the initial
  operations scenario and the goals for
  upgradeability be properly assessed. -gt Parameter
  Committee(Chaired by Rolf Heuer)

6
Parameters for the ILC (2003)

• Ecm adjustable from 200 500 GeV
• Luminosity ? ? Ldt 500 fb-1 in 4 years
• Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV
• Energy stability and precision below 0.1
• Electron polarization of at least 80
• The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV

7
ILCSC Charter (cont)

• Monitor the machine RD activities and make
  recommendations on the coordination and sharing
  of RD tasks as appropriate. Although the
  accelerator technology choice may well be
  determined by the host country, the ILCSC should
  help facilitate this choice to the largest degree
  possible. gt ITRP (International Technology
  Recommendation Panel)
• Identify models of the organizational structure,
  based on international partnerships, adequate for
  constructing the LC facility. In addition, the
  ILCSC should make recommendations regarding the
  role of the host country in the construction and
  operation of the facility.

8
ITRP Recommendationendorsed by ICFA in August
2004

• ICFA has decided on superconducting technology
  for the future linear collider (LC), by endorsing
  the resolution of the ITRP. The ITRP report
  emphasizes the importance of world-wide unified
  approach as a single team to design the
  international linear collider (ILC). -gt ILCSC
  has established GDE

9
Global project named International Linear
Collider (ILC)
10
Global Design Effort (GDE)

• ILCSC set up a committee with Paul Grannis as
  Chair to select a Director for the GDE.
• February 2005, at TRIUMF, ILCSC and ICFA
  unanimously endorsed the Committees choice.
• On March 18, 2005
• Barry Barish
• officially accepted
• the position at
• the opening of
• LCWS 05 meeting
• at Stanford.

11
Global Design Effort

• The Mission of the GDE
• Produce a design for the ILC that includes a
  detailed design concept, performance assessments,
  reliable international costing, an
  industrialization plan , siting analysis, as well
  as detector concepts and scope.
• Coordinate worldwide prioritized proposal driven
  R D efforts (to demonstrate and improve the
  performance, reduce the costs, attain the
  required reliability, etc.)

12
ILC DGE
ILC-MOU Signed on May 10, 2005
13
Comment on ILC MoU

• GDE activities are done on the basis of this ILC
  MoU
• Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP), Kyungpook
  University of Korea and IN2P3 of France have
  signed the ILC MoU
• This ILC MoU is valid until May 2008 and it shall
  be reviewed at the time of transition from RDR to
  TDR

14

• The GDE Plan and Schedule

2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010
CLIC
Global Design Effort
Project
LHC Physics
Baseline configuration
Reference Design
Technical Design
ILC RD Program
Expression of Interest to Host
International Mgmt
From Barry
15
ILC-Asia MOU CAT CHEP IHEP KEK PAL TIFR
ATF MOU SLAC, FNAL, LBNL, Cornell CERN, DESY,
Q.M.U.L., R.H.U.L, Oxford, U.C.L. IHEP, PAL,
Tokyo, Kyoto, Nagoya, Waseda, KEK
16
ILCSC has setup MAC as its sub-panelMarch 2006

• 1. As one of the ILCSC oversight activities of
  GDE, MAC (Machine Advisory Committee) has been
  formed in March 2006.
• 2. MAC reviews the GDE activities with respect to
  accelerators and report to ILCSC, and, at the
  same time, give advice to GDE director.
• 3. MAC reviews BCD as soon as the document is
  released, and then?review the activities of GDE
  at appropriate time until RDR is finalized.
• 4. MAC meets a few times a year during this
  period.
• 5. Number of MAC members is 10-12, and members
  shall be selected mostly on the basis of their
  expertise and not on the basis of regional
  balance.

17
ILC MAC members
Name Affiliation Expertise, etc
Ferdinad Willeke DESY Chair
Norbert Holtkamp ORNL linac, RF, LC, Project
Katsunobu Oide KEK e-ring, Accelerator Physics, Project
John Seeman SLAC e-ring, Accelerator Physics, Project, MDI
Mike Harrison BNL Resigned in December 2006 and replaced by Don Hartill
Don Hartill Cornell Project (added in December)
Dave McGinnis FNAL RF, accelerator physics, project
Claus Rhode TJL cryogenics
Lenny Rivkin PSI low emittance ring, accelerator physics
Takaaki Furuya KEK SCRF
In-Soo Ko PAL linac, accelerator physics, project
Bernd Loehr DESY long term technical coordinator of ZEUS
Burt Richter SLAC project, Accelerator physics
Gunter Geschonke CERN RF, SCRF
Yuri Shatunov BINP accelerator physics, project
Shin-ichi Kurokawa KEK Chair of ILCSC, ex-officio
Maskazu Yoshioka KEK l Project (added in December 2006)
Roy Rubinstein FNAL Secretary
18
MAC meetings

• 1st April 6-7, 2006, at FNAL
• 2nd September 20-22, 2006, at KEK
• 3rd January 10-12, 2007, at Daresbury,
• 4th Spring, 2007, in BNL

19
(No Transcript)
20
Sponsors

• America
• Total US70k DOE 50k, Fermilab 10k, SLAC 10k
• Supported 19 students, 7 lecturers
• Asia
• KEK supported 36 students, 7 lecturers, US 90K
• KEK also covered all local expenses (meeting
  rooms, A/V, school supplies, computers, local
  transportation, field trip, banquet, video
  taping, etc.)
• Europe
• CERN 5 students (one from Poland), 2 lecturers
• DESY 4 students, 2 lecturers
• INFN 2 students, 2 lecturers
• IN2P3 5 students (one from Russia)
• U.K. Oxford - 1 student, CCLRC - 1 student,
  EuroTeV - 1 student

21
Program
Saturday, May 20 Sunday, May 21 Monday, May 22 Tuesday, May 23
Morning 0900 1230 Opening remarks (10) Lecture 1 Introduction I (90) Fumihiko Takasaki (KEK) Why LC Whats ILC Layout of ILC Overview of issues Lecture 2 Introduction II (90) Tor Raubenheimer (SLAC) Parameter choices optimization Lecture 5 Damping ring basics (180) Susanna Guiducci (INFN-LNF) Betatron motion Synchrotron motion Beam energy Beam emittance Radiation damping Intrabeam scattering Lecture 7 ILC Linac basics (90) Chris Adolphsen (SLAC) Linac basic principles SW linacs and structures SRF parameter constraints Beam loading and coupling Lorentz force detuning Lecture 8 ILC Linac beam dynamics (90) Kiyoshi Kubo (KEK) Lattice layout Beam quality preservation RF field stability Wakefield and dampers HOMs Alignment tolerances Vibration problems Beam based alignment Lecture 9 High power RF (60) Stefan Choroba (DESY) RF system overview Modulators Klystrons RF distribution Lecture 10 SRF basics (120) Shuichi Noguchi (KEK) Superconductivity basics SRF peculiarities Cavity design criteria Various constraints ILC BCD Cavity
Afternoon 1400 1730 Lecture 3 Sources (120) Masao Kuriki (KEK) e- gun e sources Polarized sources Lecture 4 Bunch compressors (60) Eun-San Kim (Kyungpook Natl Univ.) Bunch compressors Spin rotator Lecture 6 Damping ring design (180) Andy Wolski (Univ. of Liverpool) Options Lattice Parameter optimization Machine acceptance E-cloud, space charge and instability issues Wigglers Kickers and other technical systems Field trip to Kamakura Lecture 11 SRF cavity technology (180) Peter Kneisel (Jlab) Material issues Cavity fabrication and tuning Surface preparation Gradient limit and spread Power Coupler HOM Couplers Slow and fast tuner Path to ILC
Evening 1900 2030 Tutorial homework Tutorial homework Tutorial homework Tutorial homework
22
Program (cont)
Wednesday, May 24 Thursday, May 25 Friday, May 26 Saturday, May 27
Morning 0900 1230 Lecture 12 ILC cryomodule (60) Carlo Pagani (INFN-Milano) ILC cryogenics and rational ILC cryomodule concept Lecture 13 Room-temperature RF (120) Hans Braun (CERN) Room temperature cavity and gradient limit CLIC design Lecture 16 Instrumentation feedback (180) Marc Ross (SLAC) Beam monitoring Precision instrumentation Feedback systems Bus from Sokendai to KEK Group A Lecture 19 Detectors (90) Hitoshi Yamamoto (Tohoku Univ.) ILC detectors Lecture 20 Physics (90) Rolf-Dieter Heuer (DESY) ILC physics Physics beyond 1 TeV e-e- and ?-? options ILC and XFEL Group B Special lecture ATF (60) Junji Urakawa (KEK) ATF experiments (120)
Afternoon 1400 1730 Lecture 14 Beam delivery (120) Andrei Seryi (SLAC) Beam delivery system overview Collimation Machine-detector interface, shielding and beam dump Beam monitoring and control at final focus Lecture 15 Beam-beam (60) Daniel Schulte (CERN) Beam-beam interaction Lecture 17 Conventional facilities (90) Vic Kuchler (Fermilab) Overview Tunneling Site requirement Lecture 18 Operations (90) Marc Ross (SLAC) Reliability Availability Remote control and global network KEK tour B-Factory Photon Factory SRF ATF Group B Lecture 19 Detectors (90) Hitoshi Yamamoto (Tohoku Univ.) Lecture 20 Physics (90) Rolf-Dieter Heuer (DESY) Group A Special lecture ATF (60) Junji Urakawa (KEK) ATF experiments (120) Group A B Student awards ceremony Farewell party
Evening 1900 2030 Tutorial homework Banquet Tutorial homework Free time Free time
23
Students

• In six weeks (Jan 5 Feb 15) we received 535
  applications from 44 countries
• 74 students attended the school

24
Student Survey (cont)

• Will you recommend this school to your fellow
  students or colleagues?
• If opportunity available, do you plan to work on
  the ILC or linear colliders in the future?

25
Next ILC School

• The GDE Executive Committee has decided to
  propose to sponsor and organize a second school
• The proposal will be presented to the ILCSC and
  ICFA meeting on July 30th also in Moscow.
• ICFA approval is essential in order to get
  world-wide support for funding.
• Possible place and time Fall of 2007 in Erice

26
Asian ILC Schools

• In addition to this initiatives, to hold Asian
  schools on ILC in China, India, Korea, etc., is
  highly recommendable and valuable.
• ACFA has endorsed this initiative in September
  ACFA meeting.
• Asian ILC School in India in 2007 is being
  planned.

27
Recent and Future ILCSC meetings

• July 30, 2006, in Moscow
• November 11, 20006, in Valencia
• January 12, 2007 (afternoon), in Daresbury (after
  MAC on January 10-12). First RDR cost disclosure
  to ILCSC.
• February 8, 2007, in Beijing
• April MAC in BNL
• May or June 2007, in DESY (has yet to be fixed)

28
ILCSC in Moscow

• Revision of ILCSC MandateRevision of ILCSC
  Mandate was discussed and a draft was proposed to
  ICFA (without any major changes). ICFA has
  approved.

29
Revised Mandate of ILCSC (August 2006)

• The ILCSC, as a Sub-panel of ICFA, is established
  in order to facilitate a global support towards
  the realization of the International Linear
  Collider as a global collaborative effort,
  drawing on input from regional steering
  committees.
• The ILCSC has established the Global Design
  Effort (GDE) Central Team to coordinate and
  direct the effort of the teams in Asia, Europe
  and the Americas that comprise the GDE. The
  ILCSC, representing ICFA, will provide oversight
  to the GDE.
• The ILCSC will monitor the progress of the GDE
  activities, including through reports by the GDE
  Director and the assessment of technical progress
  through reports by the MAC Chairperson.

30
Revised Mandate of ILCSC (wrt FALC)

• The ILCSC will work closely with the Funding
  Agencies for the Linear Collider (FALC) and/or
  other national or international agencies to
  facilitate the evolution of GDE to an institution
  under international governance aimed at the
  construction of the ILC.
• The ILCSC will assess and endorse budget requests
  for the common operations fund of the Central
  Team that the GDE Director will put forward to
  Funding Agencies for the Linear Collider (FALC)
  for approval.
• Comment FALC has changed its name from Funding
  Agencies for Linear Colliders to Funding Agencies
  for Large Colliders in May 2006
• FALC is now trying to write Terms of Reference

31
(No Transcript)
32

• The GDE Plan and Schedule

2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010
CLIC
Global Design Effort
Project
LHC Physics
Baseline configuration
Reference Design
Technical Design
ILC RD Program
Expression of Interest to Host
International Mgmt
From Barry
33
Modified Mandate of ILCSC (wrt WWS)

• The Worldwide Study (WWS) will report regularly
  to the ILCSC and advise it on ILC physics and
  detector issues, while maintaining close contact
  with the GDE on the development of detector
  concepts and detector RD
• The ILCSC will monitor the progress of the
  detector and machine detector interface
  development, including through reports by the
  co-chairpersons of the WWS and the Machine
  Detector Interface Committee (MDI).

34
ILCSC in Moscow (cont)

• RDR Cost ReviewILCSC felt that it should become
  involved in an international cost validation
  process, not to evaluate costs, but to study the
  methodology by which they are derived.
• WWSHow will the selection of experiments be
  done, and with what criteria? The discussion has
  just started. Should there be an ITRP-like
  committee? A more permanent body?
• Additional MOU SignatoriesCenter for High Energy
  Physics (CHEP), Kyungpook University and IN2P3
  has officially showed their interest. Following
  the procedure outlined in the MOU, the requests
  will be forwarded to the existing MOU signers for
  approval. (these proposal have been approved)

35
ILCSC in Moscow (cont)

• ILC SchoolMay 06 SOKENDAI ILC School was a great
  success. SK requests ILCSCs input on the
  possibility of holding a second such school. It
  was agreed that the school was valuable in
  attracting interest in the ILC and in accelerator
  physics in general. SK will contact GDE and
  existing schools to see if a second ILC school
  can be incorporated into one of the existing
  series.
• ILC ParametersIn order to obtain a better
  understanding of the relation between cost and
  performance, it was felt useful to ask the
  Parameters Subcommittee (chaired by Rolf Heuer)
  to re-examine its 2003 report. ILCSC decided to
  reactivate the Parameters Subcommittee.

36
ILCSC in Moscow (cont)

• From RDR to TDRKurokawa questioned whether ILCSC
  should start considering actions for the
  transition from RDR to TDR. It was agreed that SK
  should make some proposals on this subject for
  future ILCSC consideration.

37
ILCSC in Valencia

• MAC report 2nd MAC was held on September 20-22
  at KEK. Ferdi Willeke (MAC Chair) reported its
  report to ILCSC. Nick Walker of GDE showed GDEs
  response to ILCSC.It was also agreed that to
  have replacement of one member (Mike Harrison-gt
  Don Hartill) and to add one more cost expert to
  the MAC (ILCSC has selected Masakazu Yoshioka of
  KEK).
• Parameters Committee ReportRolf Heuer reported
  semi-final version of the report to ILCSC. The
  final version will come out soon.

38
Preliminary Conclusions (1)

• Luminosity
• whats behind the statement in the 2003 document
• app. 500 fb-1 in the first four years of
  running, not counting year zero
• - Assuming design luminosity of 3x1034 /cm2/s
  running for a snowmass year of 107 s
• yields 300 fb-1 of integrated luminosity.
• Note 107 s correspond to 120 (240) days running
  with 100 (50) efficiency
• In 2003 we assumed design luminosity only in year
  4 and took 250 fb-1 for that year.
• We assumed a steady increase in instantaneous
  luminosity from
• year 0 (0 of design lumi) to year 1 (10), year
  2 (30) and year 3 (60) to year 4.
• Result 500 fb-1 in the first four years of
  running, not counting year zero
• The statement
• Doubling the integrated luminosity to a total of
  1 ab-1 within two additional
• Years
• is a natural consequence of having achieved
  design luminosity in year 4

39
Preliminary Conclusions (2)
Luminosity All measurements are statistically
limited, lowering luminosity by a factor 2
results in doubling the running time. Since we
are interested in integrated luminosity Q1 Can
we assume a longer running time per year? Q2 Is
cost saving possible by running with lower
current but w/o reducing the number of bunches?
Reduces luminosity and beamstrahlung so that some
effects cancel The assumptions in 2003 were
(reasonable?) estimates. However, these
assumptions indicate that the loss in integrated
luminosity is not dramatic if one starts with
lower design luminosity and/or reduced number of
bunches in the first few (0 to 2 ?) years
provided the design luminosity is (successively)
re-established in the following years. A steeper
increase in luminosity performance than
anticipated in the 2003 document through
successive installation of the remaining parts
could then still deliver the desired integrated
luminosity within the anticipated time frame.
Nonetheless Reducing luminosity should be the
very last option. Staging in the first few years
to be discussed. No permanent de-scoping.
40
Preliminary Conclusions (3)
Beamstrahlung Most measurements suffer from
increased beamstrahlung thus requring more
luminosity for achieving same accuracy On the
other hand reduced beamstrahlung results in
luminosity gain Reduced beamstrahlung
equivalent to some luminosity gain dependend on
physics channel (e.g. MH at E350
GeV) Consequence ? with reduced beamstrahlung
slightly lower current acceptable Higher
beamstrahlung undesirable (to be quantified)
41
Preliminary Conclusions (4)
Energy Highest possible energy is called for but
at present there is no known measurement which
could not be done at slightly reduced
energy. Removing safety margins in energy reach
is acceptable. Max. lumi not needed at the top
energy (500 GeV), however, 500 GeV should be
reachable assuming nominal gradient before
knowing more about physics scenarion
realised Positron Polarisation Many measurements
gain from positron polarisation, thus also
requiring less luminosity for same accuracy.
Positron Polarisation is very beneficial in many
scenarios, including SM scenarios ? this option
mandatory to be kept open Note Recently the
possibility of initial positron polarisation as
high as 30 was mentioned for the
ILC baseline configuration (eq. to 10 lumi
gain?) Assuming this, a slight
reduction in luminosity seems acceptable
? to be verified and quantified by the physics
groups
42
Preliminary Conclusions (5)

• Number of IRs
• Two experiments are required.
• If large cost saving with one IR Push-Pull could
  be an option.
• However
• reasonably short switch over times (1week or so?)
  in order not to loose much lumi
• frequent moves desired (every 2-3 months?) in
  order to treat both expts equally
• Two detectors highly desired, one IR feasible
• ? See report by the push-pull task force
• Energy upgrade to approx. 1TeV
• An option mandatory to be kept open

43
Preliminary Conclusions (6)
Gamma-Gamma Should be kept as an option for the
reasons given in the 2003 document. However
more realistic studies plus possibly investments
are required. Giga-Z to be kept as an option
for the reasons given in the 2003 document
Outlook
Parameter group meeting here in Valencia to
produce a preliminary written version of
conclusions taking into account YOUR comments and
discussions with GDE
44
ILCSC in Valencia(cont)From RDR to TDR From
the Minutes of ILCSC Moscow

• Kurokawa questioned whether ILCSC should start
  considering actions for the transition from RDR
  to TDR. The GDE MOU does not cover the TDR
  phase, and it is unlikely that FALC will take
  over the oversight of GDE at least in the early
  stages of TDR. How do we define TDR? What should
  be ILCSCs role in this transition? What kind of
  discussion and preparation are necessary?
• It was agreed that Kurokawa should make some
  proposals on this subject for future ILCSC
  consideration.

45
Plans until Beijing (Feb. '07)
November
December
January
February
2006
2007
Valencia
Further cost consolidation CCR preparation
submission
Cost Design Freeze 30/11
Prepare for Full Cost Review
SLAC Cost Review 14-16/12
Final cost corrections and documentation
MAC 10-12/01/07
Agency cost briefings
Beijing RDR draft published
46
What Happens after Beijing?

• Public Release of Draft RDR and Preliminary
  Costing at Beijing
• Cost Reviews, etc
• Finalize RDR by Summer 2007?
• Enter into Engineering Design Phase
• Planning underway internally
• Design will evolve through value engineering and
  RD program,
• Some potential changes will effect MDI and we
  will need to continue close collaboration
• General Goal is to have Construction Proposal
  ready by 2010

47
Discussion on RDR to TDR

• A first discussion concerning the next steps
  took place at Valencia and ILCSC and ILCSC has
  decided its action. It was agreed that ILCSC
  would ask GDE to give its input to ILCSC at the
  occasion of ILCSC meeting in Beijing in February
  2007. Discussion will be continued further after
  Beijing meeting.

48
Action by ILCSC agreed upon

• As an oversight body of GDE, ILCSC should
  evaluate the RDR (on the basis of report given by
  GDE, the MAC report, and information given by
  WWS). This evaluation process will need a few
  months after the RDR report is issued.
• The Machine Advisory Committee (MAC) should
  evaluate the RDR from technical view point and
  report to ILCSC.

49
Action by ILCSC(cont)

• ILCSC will ask the GDE to provide a proposal and
  schedule how to move forward from the RDR to the
  TDR, including the design of accelerators, cost
  estimate, organizational structure, world-wide
  cooperation, coordination of world-wide RD
  activities, and relation with the physics
  community.
• ILCSC will then evaluate the proposal given by
  the GDE.

50
Action by ILCSC(cont)

• Based on this evaluation, ILCSC will recommend to
  ICFA on how to move from RDR to TDR phase and
  report to FALC. The proposal should include a)
  Definition of the scope of the TDR and the
  action necessary to reach this scope b)
  Organizational structure c) Legal framework
  (e.g. MoU) for the RDR to TDR phase
• Two important issues 1) how to establish scheme
  for global-coordinated RD for ILC (real work)
  2) how to make GDE on much solid footing.

51
ILCSC in Valencia(cont)

• GDE Common FundPlan for GDE common fund for
  FY2007, 2008, 2009, was shown by GDE. Discussion
  shall be continued to coming ILCSC meetings.
• ILC SchoolILCSC has approved to prepare to hold
  the 2nd ILC School in Erice in fall of 2007.
  Contact with existing accelerator schools shall
  be carefully done.
• WWSJim Brau showed a first plan and time line
  for selecting two experiments. Elaborated plan
  will be given to ILCSC in Beijing for its
  discussion.

52
ILCSC in Valencia(cont)

• Mandate of the next MAC (January 10-12, in
  Daresbury) Review the soundness of the overall
  RDR concept, identify any areas of concern, note
  what RD is still needed, and comment on whether
  the performance parameters can be met.
• Review the cost methodology and identify
  any areas of concern.

53
ILCSC in Valencia(cont)

• Additional ILCSC meeting in DaresburyTaking
  into account that the cost will be first
  disclosed at the next MAC meeting in Daresbury,
  it was decided that we would hold an additional
  ILCSC meeting on January 12 at Daresbury from the
  close-out session of the MAC meeting. ICFA
  members who do not serve on the ILCSC will also
  be invited.

54
Agenda of Beijing ILCSC meetingFebruary 8, 2007

• Joint ICFA/ILCSC meeting in the morning of Feb. 8
  to discuss the RDR and its cost estimate.
• Press release is planned to be held around noon
  time.
• ILCSC will continue its discussion in the
  afternoon (MAC Report GDE Response to MAC
  Report Parameters Subcommittee Report WWS
  FALC-RG RDR to TDR (continued) Regional
  Reports).

55
Tentative Outcome of FALC in Tsukuba November
20, 2006

• It was agreed that a single international cost
  review of the RDR should take place.
• The ILCSC could be invited to organize this
  review. ILCSC will nominate 2 members per region
  and add a few members if it thinks appropriate,
  taking into account expertise of members. In
  addition to it two members per region will be
  selected by FALC.
• This review should focus on cost trends and
  relative costs of sub-systems as they relate to
  potential scope changes to be incorporated in the
  TDR, their relevance to the RD program needed to
  complete the TDR, and the methodology used in
  the estimate.
• This review will be held in May and June.

56
Situation in China

• In China a ?????? was held on December 5-7, where
  ILC was discussed. This is the first official
  meeting wrt ILC in China. The subject was What
  is the role of China Confronted with the
  International Linear Collider (ILC), a Large
  Scientific International Project.

57
Situation in China (cont)

• Excerpt from message sent by Gao Jie of IHEP
• But concluding spirit from the Chinese scientists
  who attended the meeting, support the idea for
  China to join actively ILC collaboration from
  physics, detector and accelerator point of view,
  and others. So I think we achieved the goal we
  expected. However, it will take relaxation time
  to feel some reaction. Personally, I think the
  relaxation time should extend till the end of
  June 2007, when CCAST, Prof. T.D. Lee as
  director, will hold a physics meeting to discuss
  ILC related physics, and after that he might say
  some words supportive, which will be influential.
  I think ILC Perfume Montain Meeting Conclusion
  T.D. Lee's supportive word will put things
  forward.
• As information CCAST agreed me to held an ILC
  accelerator meeting next year in Beijing, maybe
  in Nov. about 50 participants.

58
Situation in India

• Indian ILC Forum has been established recently.
• RD on ILC will surely be included within the
  next 5-year science plan of India starting from
  April 2007.
• Indian DAE chairman, Dr Kakodkar showed his great
  interest in ILC when KEK delegate (KEK DG and
  others) visited India in October.

59
Thank you for your Attention !