ECFA EUROPEAN LINEAR COLLIDER STEERING GROUP

1. ECFA/03/224 ECFAEUROPEAN LINEAR COLLIDER STEERING GROUP REPORT OF THE SUB-GROUP ON ORGANISATIONAL MATTERS (SGOM) (http://committees.web.cern.ch/Committees/ECFA/CERN03KalmusReport.pdf) gekSGOM Cornell

2. SGOMTERMS OF REFERENCE • From a European perspective, work out a possible model or models for the design, construction and operation of a linear collider* as a truly international project. • Develop a road map towards setting up the project * The linear collider being considered is a 0.5 to 1.0 TeV electron-positron machine with latest completion date of about 2014, i.e being complementary to and having a large temporal overlap with the LHC gekSGOM Cornell

3. SGOM Terms of Reference (cont.) The following aspects should be considered: • Possible collaborative arrangements for the design, construction and operation of a Linear Collider • Administrative structures needed to realise the above, including chains of responsibility • Obligations and responsibilities of partners, including models for stable funding of the construction and operation • Mechanisms for ensuring proper project and budgetary control • Formal aspects of the collaborative arrangements, including, but not limited to, questions of free access, intellectual property etc. gekSGOM Cornell

4. Membership of SGOM • Torsten Åkesson • Ian Corbett • Umberto Doselli • Jos Engelen • Joel Feltesse • Lorenzo Foa • Eva-Maria Gröniger-Voss • Peter von Handel Secretary • Kurt Hübner • George Kalmus Chairman • Helmut Krech • Chris Llewellyn Smith • Norman McCubbin • Guy Wormser gekSGOM Cornell

5. SGOM. Meetings and Invited Contributors: • Meeting 1 RAL 5/6 Nov. 2002 M. Cox UKAEA Culham JET and ITER R. Wade PPARC UK Perspective of the LC • Meeting 2CERN 6/7 Dec. 2002 S. Bertolucci INFN Frascati INFN and the LC L. Maiani CERN Organisation of LC Project M. BourquinCERN CouncilStatus of CERN • Meeting 3CNRS, Paris24/25 Feb. 2003 J. Jaquinot Euratom/CEA Organisation of ITER J. Credland ESA, Paris Large Co-operative Projects in ESA • Meeting 4DESY10/11 April 2003 S. Michalowski OECD, Paris The OECD’s Role A Wagner DESY The DESY view point H. Schunck BMBF, Bonn German Perspective of the LC • Meeting 5NIKHEF 14-17 May 2003 H. Chang FOM Dutch Perspective of the LC gekSGOM Cornell

6. Recommendations (1): Nature of the Organisation a) The LC should be an international legal entity established through intergovernmental agreement as a time limited “Project” located at or near an established laboratory. (Global Linear Collider Project, (GLCP)) • The Project should be fully international from the outset, with a well-defined relationship with the nearby Host Laboratory which should provide services and infrastructure. • All personnel employed by the GLCP, or seconded to it and originating from the GLCP Member States must have right of access and accompanying family members must be granted visas. For personnel employed by the GLCP or on long-term secondment to the Project, work permits from the Host State should be available to spouses/partners. gekSGOM Cornell

7. Recommendations (2): • The management has to be lean, effective and transparent. The number of staff employed directly by the GLCP should kept to a minimum. Wherever possible staff should be seconded from member states. e) Governance of the GLCP should be organised on a regional basis, namely three regions, “Americas”, “Asia” and “Europe”, each with its own Regional Board. • States should participate in the governance of the GLCP through their Regional Board. g) The GLCP should be governed by a Council composed initially of fifteen voting members, five appointed by each Regional Board. h) In addition to the voting members, the Council should have, in attendance, a representative from the Host State, the Project Leader and the chairs of its advisory committees. gekSGOM Cornell

8. State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9 Regional Board “AMERICAS” Regional Board “EUROPE” Regional Board “ASIA” GLCP COUNCIL 5 members from each Region Ex officio: Host State representative Project Leader, Director of Host Lab, Chairmen of SAC, POC and FC Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) Finance Committee (FC) Project Oversight Committee (POC) LINEAR COLLIDER PROJECT DIRECTORATE Chairman: Project Leader Members: Deputy Project Leader, Directors Extended form: Add directors from Lead Labs GLCP- HOST LAB Coordinating Cttee HOST LAB. Machine Advisory Committee (MAC) Central Team/ Project Office TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT BOARD Chairman: Technical Director Members: Project Leader, Deputy PL, Head of Integration, Leaders of all Major Work Packages (from lead labs/industry) Central Team W/P Package Board 1 Major W/P 2 Package Board 2 Major W/P 3 Package Board 3 Major W/P 4 Package Board 4 Major W/P 5 Package Board 5 Fig. 1c Governance (GLCP Council and above), Management (Light blue boxes below GLPC Council) and Monitoring (Bi-coloured boxes) structure of the GLCP gekSGOM Cornell

9. Recommendations (3): i) The Project Leader has the overview and overall responsibility for the execution and delivery of the GLCP, and is the interface between the project and the Council. j) All votes within the GLCP Council shouldhave the same weight, but for some issues safeguards may need to be introduced. k) An appropriate structure should be devised for the GLCP giving the Project Leader the responsibility and resources to bring the Project to a successful conclusion. The structure should include an oversight and monitoring system which will ensure that the status of the GLCP is transparent to the Member States at all times. l) The composition and voting procedures in each Regional Board is a matter for the states in that region. gekSGOM Cornell

10. Recommendations (6): GLCP Contributions o) The fairest and most justified financial model would involve the Host State paying a premium of about 25% of the construction cost (herein after referred to as the Host State Premium), and the balance being divided according to the GDP of the Member States including the Host State. p) The contributions of the Member States should be organised on a regional basis under the control of the Regional Boards, which would monitor and adjust the contributions within the region as necessary. In-kind contributions should be by value according to a common costing model. q) The minimum contribution of each member should be proportional to its GDP. Contributions above the GDP share by interested states that wish to enhance the role of their institutes or industry should be encouraged. gekSGOM Cornell

11. Recommendations (7): r) Members should make cash and in-kind contributions. They may choose to make their contributions wholly in cash. s) The majority of the components should be provided as in-kind contributions valued according to a common costing model t) A significant cash element will be required to allow the Project Leader the flexibility needed to bring the project to a successful and timely conclusion. u) These in-kind contributions cover the design, manufacture and long-term technical responsibility for major components of the project. Competent institutes,(Lead Laboratories) of the Member States should take the responsibility for these contributions. These Lead Laboratories would be the key players in the realisation of the GLCP. This distribution of responsibility for major components is one of the basic concepts of the Global Accelerator Network (GAN) gekSGOM Cornell

12. Recommendations (8): Next Steps v) A political and financial group at high level drawn from all regions should be formed as soon as possible to take forward the important questions of site choice, funding of the detailed design, cost sharing and form of the global project including governance. We recommend that “Europe” take the initiative to form this group. w) The CERN Council should as soon as possible organise a meeting to assess interest in the GLCP among “European” states, inviting representatives of potentially interest non-CERN-Member States. x) Funding agencies from interested state should establish a pre-GLCP Council. This body should be dissolved when the GLCP is approved. y) Once the technology and site have been chosen a group should be set up to prepare the detailed technical design and cost. This design group would most likely contain many of the same people as the ILCSC international design team which would then be dissolved. gekSGOM Cornell

13. State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9 Governance Organigram Regional Board “AMERICAS” Regional Board “EUROPE” Regional Board “ASIA” GLCP COUNCIL 5 members from each Region Ex officio: Host State representative Project Leader, Director of Host Lab, Chairmen of SAC, POC and FC Fig. 1a Governance gekSGOM Cornell

14. State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9 Regional Board “AMERICAS” Regional Board “EUROPE” Regional Board “ASIA” GLCP COUNCIL 5 members from each Region Ex officio: Host State representative Project Leader, Director of Host Lab, Chairmen of SAC, POC and FC LINEAR COLLIDER PROJECT DIRECTORATE Chairman: Project Leader Members: Deputy Project Leader, Directors Extended form: Add directors from Lead Labs HOST LAB. GLCP- HOST LAB Coordinating Cttee Central Team/ Project Office TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT BOARD Chairman: Technical Director Members: Project Leader, Deputy PL, Head of Integration, Leaders of all Major Work Packages (from lead labs/industry) Central Team W/P Package Board 1 Major W/P 2 Package Board 2 Major W/P 3 Package Board 3 Major W/P 4 Package Board 4 Major W/P 5 Package Board 5 Fig. 1b Governance (GLCP Council and above), Management (Light blue boxes below GLPC Council) gekSGOM Cornell

15. State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9 Regional Board “AMERICAS” Regional Board “EUROPE” Regional Board “ASIA” GLCP COUNCIL 5 members from each Region Ex officio: Host State representative Project Leader, Director of Host Lab, Chairmen of SAC, POC and FC Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) Finance Committee (FC) Project Oversight Committee (POC) LINEAR COLLIDER PROJECT DIRECTORATE Chairman: Project Leader Members: Deputy Project Leader, Directors Extended form: Add directors from Lead Labs GLCP- HOST LAB Coordinating Cttee HOST LAB. Machine Advisory Committee (MAC) Central Team/ Project Office TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT BOARD Chairman: Technical Director Members: Project Leader, Deputy PL, Head of Integration, Leaders of all Major Work Packages (from lead labs/industry) Central Team W/P Package Board 1 Major W/P 2 Package Board 2 Major W/P 3 Package Board 3 Major W/P 4 Package Board 4 Major W/P 5 Package Board 5 Fig. 1c Governance (GLCP Council and above), Management (Light blue boxes below GLPC Council) and Monitoring (Bi-coloured boxes) structure of the GLCP gekSGOM Cornell

16. Comparison of ALMA, ITER and GLCP gekSGOM Cornell

17. Recommendations (4): European Regional Board m) All “European” Member States should be represented on the “European” Regional Board, but voting on this Board should be by a form of qualified majority where each state’s vote is proportional to its fractional GDP (or its fractional contribution if the Board so decides). gekSGOM Cornell

18. Recommendations (5): n) For “Europe” we consider there are two options: Either: • All CERN member states participate in the GLCP as part of the basic programme of CERN, with association/cooperation agreements to allow non-CERN “European” states to participate. In this case the “European” Regional Board would be the CERN Council. This role for the CERNCouncil will require it to take a strategic overview of European particle physics and modify its working practices. We note that such a role is fully consistent with the mandate of CERN as given in the CERN convention. or: • “European” contributions are made outside the CERN programme. In this case consideration should be given to using a super- or sub-set of the CERN Council reconstituted as the “European” Regional Board. We have not reached a conclusion on a choice, and we recommend wider consultation to explore them further. gekSGOM Cornell

19. Recommendations (9): CERN’s interaction with the GLCP z) We have considered carefully the relationship between CERNLab and the GLCP. • CERNLab is and should remain Europe’s accelerator laboratory. • CERNLab should remain the hub of a European accelerator research network for future machines beyond the GLCP. This network consists of institutes in European nations with accelerator R&D expertise. • CERNLab’s flagship facility the LHC will be operating in parallel with the Linear Collider (if it is constructed on the timetable envisaged) for a substantial period and the LHC must be fully supported, including possible upgrading. • The GLCP has to be seen as an integral part of the European particle physics programme. Given the likely cost of the GLCP and the high priority given to the completion of the LHC, it is clear that the total European particle physics budget must be maintained, in real terms. • However, some additional resources will be required before the end of the decade if the completion date of about 2014 is to be met. • The CERNLab could be a “Lead Laboratory”. gekSGOM Cornell

20. Photograph of SGOM Members at NIKHEF Meeting, May 2003 (Missing Helmut Krech and Guy Wormser) gekSGOM Cornell