1. Welcome from ICFA By Jonathan Dorfan, Chair ICFA At the Inaugural Meeting of the International Technology Recommendation Panel RAL, January 27, 2004

2. ICFA MEMBERSHIP July 2003 Canada Canada R. Keeler R. Keeler CERN Member States CERN Member States B. Foster B. Foster L. Maiani A. Wagner China China H. Chen H. Chen Japan Japan S. Komamiya S. Komamiya Y. Totsuka Y. Totsuka Russia Russia M. Danilov M. Danilov Y. Tikhonov Y. Tikhonov USA USA J. Dorfan (Chair) J. Dorfan (Chair) M. Witherell M. Witherell S. Wojcicki S. Wojcicki Other Countries Other Countries C. Garcia Canal C. Garcia Canal P. Singer P. Singer D. Son D. Son C11 C11 V. Lüth V. Lüth (Secretary: R. Rubinstein) (Secretary: R. Rubinstein)

3. Global Planning – A Must for HEP  Never before has a field of science attempted to globalize itself as extensively as HEP is doing recently. It is a challenging task, but one that we must do successfully. Indeed the long-term health of the field depends critically on truly global cooperation  ICFA is playing a key leadership role in this new global approach  The Linear Collider is the most visible and most challenging element of this more global approach – to be successful requires a new paradigm. Key to that paradigm is our need to come together with a common set of technical decisions as the basis of a LC design that truly has the collective ownership of the partners

4. International Technology Recommendation Panel  The next major step towards a global design is the creation of an internationally-federated design team. The International Linear Collider Steering Committee (ILCSC) is in the process of establishing such a team. A critical prerequisite for starting the work of the global design team is the requirement of a single option for the RF technology to power the main linacs. Thus ICFA has formed the International Technology Recommendation Panel (ITRP)  On behalf of ICFA, its subsidiary the ILCSC and the community of high energy physicists from around the globe, I would like to express our deep and sincere appreciation to the twelve members of the ITRP and the support staff for taking on this momentous task

5. International Technology Recommendation Committee Jean-Eudes Augustin Jonathan Bagger Barry Barish (Chair) Giorgio Bellettini Paul Grannis Norbert Holtkamp George Kalmus Gyung-Soo Lee Akira Masaike Katsunobu Oide Volker Soergel Hirotaka Sugawara Members

6. ICFA and the Linear Collider  ICFA has been helping guide international cooperation on the Linear Colider since the early 1990’s. Major contributions: 1995: First ILC TRC Report, under Greg Loew as Chair 1995: First ILC TRC Report, under Greg Loew as Chair 1999: ICFA Statement on Linear Collider 2002: Established the International Linear Collider Steering Committee with Maury Tigner as Chair 2003: Second ILC TRC Report, under Greg Loew as Chair

8.  ICFA Statement on Linear Colliders Scientific panels charged with studying future directions for particle physics in Europe, Japan, and the United States have concluded that there would be compelling and unique scientific opportunities at a linear electron-positron collider in the TeV energy range. Such a facility is a necessary complement to the LHC hadron collider now under construction at CERN. Experimental results over the last decade from the electron-positron colliders LEP and SLC combined with those from the Tevatron, a hadron collider, have led to this worldwide consensus. Reviews of the latest experimental results at the Lepton-Photon 99 conference point ever more clearly to the conclusion that there is fundamentally new physics in the energy range just beyond the reach of existing colliders. At the very least we will find one or more Higgs scalar bosons or other structure that has the same effect as a Higgs boson on the existing data. To explore and characterize fully the new physics that must exist will require the Large Hadron Collider plus an electron-positron collider with energy in the TeV range. Just as our present understanding of the physics at the highest energy depends critically on combining results from LEP, SLC, and the Tevatron, a full understanding of new physics seen in the future will need both types of high- energy probes. Major laboratories around the world are presently conducting accelerator research and development that will lead to detailed designs of a linear electron-positron collider capable of reaching this energy range. The technology being developed for this purpose will also have applications to other areas of science and technology through new generations of intense light sources. A worldwide group is studying the physics at an electron-positron collider and the detectors needed to observe that physics. ICFA recommends continued vigorous pursuit of the accelerator research and development on a linear collider in the TeV energy range, with the goal of having designs complete with reliable cost estimates in a few years. We believe that an electron- positron collider optimized for the new physics should be built in a timely way with international participation. The URL for this page is http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/icfa_LCstatement.html International Committee for Future Accelerators Sponsored by the Particles and Fields Commission of IUPAP 12 August 1999

9. Second ILC-TRC: Charge To assess the present technical status of the four LC designs at  hand, and their potentials for meeting the advertised parameters  at 500 GeV c.m.. Use common criteria, definitions, computer  codes, etc., for the assessments To assess the potential of each design for reaching higher energies To assess the potential of each design for reaching higher energies  above 500 GeV c.m. To establish, for each design, the R&D work that remains to be To establish, for each design, the R&D work that remains to be  done in the next few years To suggest future areas of collaboration To suggest future areas of collaboration

10. Second ILC –TRC Steering Committee

12. 2002: Worldwide Concensus on Next Major HEP Facility  In 2002, planning exercises in Europe (ECFA), Asia (ACFA) and the US (HEPAP) resulted in an unanimous alignment of each region’s highest priority goal, namely the construction of a 500 GeV electron positron linear collider as a necessary physics companion for the LHC  ECFA, ACFA & HEPAP all endorsed this as an urgent need. All regions strongly urged that the project be fully international from the outset

13. In 2004, The Community’s Worldwide Commitment Remains Unchanged The Chairs of ECFA, HEPAP and ACFA have this past week, reasserted their regional support for the LC. In their words: “I can confirm that all the conclusions of the Lorenzo Foa panel, including that the next priority for a new machine for particle physics should be a linear electron-positron collider with an initial energy of at least 400 GeV, extendible up to about 1 TeV, remain the basis for the policy currently being pursued by ECFA.” “With the upcoming first meeting of the ITRP, I want to make it clear that the highest priority in the U.S. HEP program is a high-energy, high- luminosity electron-positron Linear Collider. Not only was this the conclusion of the Long-Range Planning Subpanel that was unanimously endorsed by HEPAP in 2002, but it subsequently was restated in the 2003 recommendations from HEPAP of the high-energy facilties to be a part of the Department of Energy Office of Science twenty-year facilities plan. “

14. In 2004, The Community’s Worldwide Commitment Remains Unchanged “ ACFA made two ACFA statements in the past on the International Linear Collider Project, which should be a world-wide collaboration in construction and operation. At the Plenary ACFA meeting in October 2002 in Melbourne, ACFA established ALCSC for promotion of the GLC project in Asia and for close collaboration with other region's activities, especially with ILCSC. ACFA put the Linear Collider Project at the highest priority in high- energy physics research for concurrent running with LHC. Even though the concurrent LC operation is important for the interaction of LHC/LC physics, we would also like to stress the absolute importance of LC irrespective of LHC.”  Any person or group that states their region’s priorities wrt LC as otherwise, is out of synch with their community’s desires

15. Steers towards International Steering / Oversight Group Govt. Agencies Govt. Agencies Govt. Agencies U.S. Steering Group Asian Steering Group European Steering Group International Organization / Laboratory Charged with Constructing LC

16. ICFA (J. Dorfan) IUPAP ILCSC (M. Tigner) Phys & Det Sub-com (D. Miller H. Yamamoto J. Brau ) Params Sub-com (R. Heuer) Accel Sub-com (G. Loew) 46 member countries– Argentina……USA 1975 countries active in HEP 2002– outreach, define LC, coordinate R/D, facilitate tech choice, identify ILC org. models 3 Regional Steering Committees (W. Namkung- Asia) (B. Foster– Europe) (J. Dorfan– US) Scientific Community – Global Organization

17. Mandate of the ILCSC The ILCSC will: 1. 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 2. 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 3. Monitor the machine R&D activities and make recommendations on the coordination and sharing of R&D 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 4. 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 5. Carry out such other tasks as may be approved or directed by ICFA

18. Directors CERNLuciano Maiani DESYAlbrecht Wagner FermilabMichael Witherell KEKYoji Totsuka SLACJonathan Dorfan LC Steering Group Chairs AsianWon Namkung EuropeanBrian Foster N. AmericanJonathan Dorfan Other ChairMaury Tigner China (IHEP Director) Hesheng Chen Russia (BINP Director) Alexander Skrinsky ICFA outside LC regionsCarlos Garcia Canal Asia Rep. Sachio Komamiya Europe Rep. David Miller N. American Rep. Paul Grannis SecretaryRoy Rubinstein Current Membership of the ILCSC http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/International_ILCSC.html

19. ILCSC – Physics & Detector Sub-Committee  Co-opted the Worldwide Study of Physics and Detectors for Future Linear e + e - colliders to serve as this sub- committee  They have produced a “Linear Collider Report from the World Wide Study” which is a consensus document of the LC physics studies done in each of the three regions SO FAR, THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY 2034 PHYSICISTS FROM THE WORLDWIDE HEP COMMUNITY. IT PROVIDES A CLEAR INDICATION OF THE WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FOR THE NEAR-TERM CONSTRUCTION OF A LINEAR COLLIDER

20. Linear Collider Report from WW Study Group   Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time :   The Case for the ee Linear Collider   Over the past century, physicists have sought to explain the character of the matter and energy in our universe, to show how the basic forces of nature and the building blocks of matter come about, and to explore the fabric of space and time. In the past three decades, experiments at laboratories around the world have given us a descriptive framework called the standard model. These particle physics advances make a direct impact upon our understanding of the structure of the universe, both at its inception in the Big Bang, and in its evolution to the present and future. The final synthesis is not yet fully clear, but we know with confidence that major discoveries expanding the standard model paradigm will occur at the next generation of accelerators. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) being built at CERN will take us into the discovery realm. The proposed e+e- Linear Collider (LC) will extend the discoveries and provide a wealth of measurements that are essential for giving deeper understanding of their meaning, and pointing the way to further evolution of particle physics in the future.     A world-wide consensus has formed for a baseline LC project in which positrons (e+) collide with electrons (e-) at energies up to 500 GeV, with luminosity (the measure of the collision rate) above 10 34 cm -2 s -1. The energy should be upgradable to about 1 TeV. Above this firm baseline, several options are envisioned whose priority will depend upon the nature of the discoveries made at the LHC and in the initial LC operation.   This report was prepared by the community of high energy physicists(1), many of whom have participated in the World Wide Study of Physics and Detectors for a Future Linear ee Collider(2). In it, we summarize the scientific case for the LC, the accelerator complex, the nature of the experimental detectors needed, and the cooperative steps being taken by physicists around the world to achieve it, in language that we hope will be accessible to particle physicists, and more broadly to scientists in related disciplines. We hope that this document can also be useful as background for preparing the more general case to the public audience. More extensive discussions of the LC physics program and detectors can be found in Refs. (3), (4) and (5).   Page 1 9 April, 2003

21. ILCSC – Parameter Sub-Committee  Took on the task of defining an international consensus for the key machine parameters and configurations  Document can be found at the ICFA web site: http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/LC_parameters.pdf: http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/LC_parameters.pdf Baseline Machine: The maximum centre-of-mass energy should be 500 GeV. Luminosity and reliability of the machine should allow the collection of approximately Leq = 500 fb -1 in the first four years of running. Upgrade: The strong likelihood that there will be new physics in the 500 – 1000 GeV range means that the upgradeability of the LC to about 1 TeV is the highest priority step beyond the baseline.

22. ILCSC – Accelerator Sub-Committee  Co-opted the core members of the second TRC  This sub-committee will play a key role as subject- matter experts for the International Technology Recommendation Committee

23. Charge for the IRTP General Considerations The International Technology Recommendation Panel (the Panel) should recommend a Linear Collider (LC) technology to the International Linear Collider Steering Committee(ILCSC). On the assumption that a linear collider construction commences before 2010 and given the assessment by the ITRC that both TESLA and JLC-X/NLC have rather mature conceptual designs, the choice should be between these two designs. If necessary, a solution incorporating C-band technology should be evaluated. The recommendation should be based on all relevant scientific, technical, schedule and cost considerations. Major references for the Panel will be the recently issued ITRC Second Report 2003 and the document outlining the case for the electron-positron linear collider “Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time”. To reach its recommendation the Panel will hear presentations from the design proponents addressing the above issues. The agendas of the presentations will be approved by the Panel in advance to assure uniformity of coverage of the technologies put forward. The Panel may ask for expert advice on any of the considerations listed above, drawing first on the ILCSC and its expert subcommittees, then moving beyond the ILCSC as necessary and appropriate. Relevant input from the world particle physics community will be solicited.

24. Charge for the IRTP (continued) Scientific Criteria The technology recommended shall be capable of meeting the scope and parameters set forth by the ILCSC, in the document “Parameters for the Linear Collider”, as accepted by the ILCSC on 19 November 2003. Technical Criteria Using the ICFA Technical Review Committee report and materials supplied by technical experts that may be called, the Panel will make its recommendation based on its judgment of the potential capabilities of each conceptual design for achieving the energies and the peak and integrated luminosities needed to carry out the currently understood scientific program, as envisioned in the ILC Parameters Document. Schedule Criteria Aiming for timely completion of the project, the Panel should compare milestones relating to design, engineering and industrialization for each of the two technologies being considered. Cost Criteria The Panel will need to know if there is a significant cost differential between the two designs being examined for completing the 500 GeV project and possibly any upgrades set forth in the ILC Parameters Document. The cost information should be based on available estimates as well as on the Panel’s judgments as to the reliability or completeness of the cost estimates. The Panel needs to decide what items are to be included in the cost estimates in arriving at its own comparative analyses.

25. Charge for the IRTP (continued) Report of the Panel Unanimity in the Panel’s recommendation is highly desirable in order to establish the firmest foundation for this challenging global project. The Panel is urged to report its recommendation as soon as possible, with a firm deadline by the end of 2004. A full written report with the Panel’s evaluation of each of the technologies considered should be available as soon as possible after the Panel’s deliberations have been concluded. The making of the technology choice is a key event in the world particle physics program and thus timeliness in the Panel’s reporting is of prime importance. The science agencies need to see a demonstration of the particle physics community’s determination and ability to collaborate and to unite around the technology chosen by the Panel, as a trigger for their efforts to collaborate in forming a global project.

26. Charge for the IRTP (continued) Operation of the Panel The ILCSC would like to make some suggestions regarding procedure. The Accelerator Sub-committee of the ILCSC is prepared to give an extensive tutorial on the LC. This would inform the Panel about LC issues and acquaint it with the experts from whom they can solicit advice. Following that, visits to the major LC technology sites, in as close a sequence as possible, would help to solidify understanding of the status and issues while allowing the Panel to receive input on each technology. To afford the Panel access to expert advice when needed, the ILCSC Accelerator Subcommittee should be in session on site at the Panel meeting place during their meetings. It is expected that the presentation sessions will be open to the scientific and funding agency communities.

27. Next Steps for ILCSC - Aimed at Formation of an Internationally-federated LC Design Team  ILCSC has established a task force to recommend how best to establish an internationally-federated design group that can start the machine design as soon after the technology decision as is possible. This would be the first step in internationalizing the LC. The goal is to have the structure of this design group agreed upon by ICFA and the funding agencies prior to finalizing the technology choice  Members of the task force are Satoshi Ozaki (Chair), Jonathan Dorfan, Brian Foster, Won Namkung, Yoji Totsuka, Albrecht Wagner  This task force is close to completing its recommendations. They will be presented to ICFA at the February 12-13 th meeting in Paris and son thereafter to the appropriate agencies for input

28. Role of Governments  Governments are the key – will make the decisions that lead to the establishment of an international LC project  We, the scientific community, are maintaining close contact with the key governments – albeit at an informal level. While it is fair to say they applaud and support the steps we are taking to internationalize the LC, it is imperative that we continue to make decisions and plot paths forward that can ultimately be acceptable to a broad set of governments in three regions  The governments see the technology down-select as a key measure of our commitment and our ability to make tough choices

29. Role of Governments (continued)  Besides the informal discussions within countries, there are important ongoing governmental processes: 1) Strong support in all three regions for LC R&D 2) OECD set up a Consultative Group for HEP. In 2002, it completed a comprehensive report on HEP, in which it strongly endorsed an internationally federated LC as the next major HEP project with concurrent running with the LHC. This Consultative Group, at its November 2003 meeting, agreed to continue its mission. OECD Committee for Scientific and Technology Policy at the Ministerial Level will meet January 29-30, 2004 and is expected to issue the attached draft Ministerial Statement.

30. Draft OECD Ministerial Statement: Dec. 03 International Co-operation on Large Accelerator-based Projects in High-Energy Physics Ministers expressed their appreciation for the work of the OECD Global Science Forum Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics. They welcomed the report from the Group and commended the clarity and world-wide consensus they found amongst the high-energy physics community in developing the Roadmap for future large accelerator-based facilities. In particular, the Ministers note several important points that were articulated in the report: A roadmap that identifies four interdependent priorities for global high energy physics (HEP) facilities i) the exploitation of current frontier facilities until contribution of these machines is surpassed, ii) completion and full exploitation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, iii) preparing for the development of a next-generation electron-positron collider, and iv) the continued support for appropriate R&D into novel accelerator designs. The need to have large, next-generation facilities funded, designed, built, and operated as globalscale collaborations with contribution from all countries that wish to participate. The need for strong international R&D collaboration and studies of the organisational, legal, financial, and administrative issues required to realize the next major accelerator facility on the Consultative Group's Roadmap, a next generation electron-positron collider with a significant period of concurrent running with the LHC. The need to continue to educate, attract and train young people in the fields of high-energy physics, astrophysics and cosmology in the face of the increasingly competitive environment where all areas of science, industry and commerce are seeking to capture the imagination of the most creative minds. Ministers agreed that, given the complexity and long lead times for decision making of major international projects, it is important that consultations continue within the scientific communities and, when it becomes appropriate, within interested governmental communities in order to maximise the advantages offered by global collaboration.

31. Role of Governments (continued) 3) A first informal meeting of interested government was held in London in July 2003. The next meeting is anticipated in March 2004 4) In a major public policy speech on science, the US Secretary of Energy launched in November 2003 the DOE’s “Facilities for the Future of Science -- A Twenty- Year Outlook” in which the Linear Collider alone is the highest priority mid-term project.