1. After ISS Where Do We Go From Here?

2. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS2 Next - until the end of 2006  Produce the ISS Report - with the present team & structure A Good Report is Vital  it will provide the basis of bids for R&D funding for the next stage, assuming there is a community to support it  Devise a New Effort to carry the Work Forward But what is the best way?

3. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS3 The ISS Report for the Neutrino Factory  It must address Ourselves  We have to be convinced it is viable and will produce good physics The wider community  Main problem here is probably timescale The wider particle physics community  Many in he LHC – ILC communities consider - oscillation is just a blip on the SM and that ‘serious’ BSM physics will only come from the quark sector The funding agencies  Requires pressure from the PP community The Labs  -factory has to be in possible future plans

4. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS4 Structure for a Continuation Must be established during the fall  What form should it take?  How to do it?  Who can do it? Here are some thoughts  From the ISS - PC and the original ‘Wise Men’  for discussion this week

5. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS5 Goal - An Advanced Neutrino Facility - for data taking before 2020.  To choose The facility to produce the very best physics return  But maybe too expensive The facility giving max physics/$  Weighting physics return is subjective Need a compromise & probably more information e.g. size of  13 So cannot make such a judgment today  But equally cannot keep postponing it

6. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS6 What would it be?  Neutrino Factory   -Beam Facility  High power Superbeam and very large detector Possibly two of these - but not three Future - how to proceed?  Single Study embracing all three?  Three independent studies? -assuming all three communities believe it necessary  Three quasi-independent studies but with coordination where practicable and an overall oversight body.

7. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS7 Why An Independent -Fact Study? The synergies with the others are not great Accelerator  After p-driver and target - little in common Detector  For -fact – high energy  magnetised  For Superbeam - low energy  non-magnetised, very large  For  -beam, non-magntised Physics  This is in common, provides the overall motivation and is one of the critical discriminators

8. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS8 Neutrino Facility Oversight Committee accelerator detector physics accelerator detector physics accelerator detector physics -Factory  -Beam Superbeam

9. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS9 The Oversight Body International cooperation for a future advanced neutrino facility has been strongly advocated by  EPP2010  CERN Council Strategy Document The four ISS ‘Wise Men’, Steve Geer, Yoshi Kuno,Vittorio Palladino, Ken Peach, have drafted a letter to go to all relevant accelerator lab directors asking them to facilitate coordinated R&D in the neutrino area and establish an ‘International Neutrino Facility Oversight Committee’ (INFOC)  With copies to spokespeople of all major current neutrino experiments  Aim to finalise the draft this week

10. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS10 INFOC Representatives of the Labs  And funding agencies? The Individual Neutrino collaborations would report to INFOC Would recommend support, funding, engineering for the projects Monitor Progress It ultimately would decide on the form of the future neutrino facility

11. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS11 The Neutrino Factory Collaboration For the Neutrino Factory area there would be an International Neutrino Factory Collaboration (INuFC)  Would focus purely on the -fact approach to a future -facility  It would have a structure similar to the ISS Accelerator group Detector Group Physics Group

12. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS12 INuFC - Aim To produce by ~2010 an interim report outlining  A -factory solution for a -facility which could produce data before 2020 Dependent on a successful outcome of R&D underway, e.g. MICE and other R&D following the ISS Dependent on the value of  13 Approximate costs Site Considerations  Make it possible (with resources) to produce a CDR for a n-fact by ~2012, a TDR by ~2014 and data by 2020

13. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS13 Ambitious Plan  But it is necessary - in order to Engage accelerator scientists, engineers, the - physics community  A device for ~2030 has little attraction at the present time Have an international -factory on the particle physic roadmap  And encourage the major labs/regions to include it on their roadmap  And for one of them to ‘host’ the effort Ensure adequate (substantial) resources for the CDR

14. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS14 INuFC - Questions  Structure Like ISS - 3 WG’s and a PC of WG leaders and an overall coordinator? Like a PP experiment - a wide steering group? How are people chosen?  Mandate Period of 3 years, 2007 – 2010 Indefinite  Until -fact is built or funding ceases  These - and many other questions - will need to be established at a meeting around the start of 2007 to coincide with the ISS report

15. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS15 INuFC - Needs - Goals Get Resources  Use ISS report for bids to labs, funding agencies, EU etc.  Persuade a lab (or group of labs) to ‘host’ the study and provide some engineering support  Embark upon the R&D recommended for by the ISS report  Continue the unfinished work of the ISS  Convince the wider -community that this is in the best interests of neutrino physics Get People  Need more physicists & engineers for whom this is their major activity Many in the ISS had very limited time Need committed young people.

16. 21 August 2006P Dornan - After ISS16 Discussion  These are all suggestions  They need to be discussed Starting now Continuing in the corridors - and again tomorrow afternoon.  It is important to have a plan with substantial support from the ISS for the NuFact discussion on the last day.