Dear Conveners:
 
Please see the charge for the working groups, below. The charge includes specific items to be reported in the summary talk session, Friday 31 May 09:30 to 10:00.
 
On behalf of Mike, Steinar and the ILC Technical board, thanks very much.

Marc Ross
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ECFA LC2013 Linear Collider Plenary meeting
 
DESY 27-31 May, 2013.
 
This is the first workshop after the formation of the Linear Collider Collaboration (LCC). It is dedicated to the physics potential of future high energy linear electron-positron colliders, especially in view of the new results from the LHC. The status of the detectors and the accelerator designs for both technology options, ILC and CLIC, will be reviewed.
 
Both design teams have passed important milestones in the roughly six months since LCWS2012 at Arlington. First, the ILC design team completed the TDR in early 2013 and second, the CLIC team published the CDR in late 2012. Both teams have indicated major milestones for the coming three to four years: Japan may indicate in late 2013 their intent to bid to host ILC and CLIC have planned a project implementation plan development phase until 2016.  At this important first LCC meeting the ILC and CLIC design teams would like to regroup and put together plans for the coming three years.
 
As advised at the LCWS2012 workshop, we are to further improve collaboration between CLIC and ILC machine experts. LCC plenary accelerator – side (AC) working groups AC1-AC5 have been arranged to meet the challenges set forth by the Collaboration:
AC 1	Injector Systems (Sources, Damping Rings)	Wei Gai, Masao Kuriki and Yannis Papaphilippou	
AC 2	Beam Delivery System, Machine-Detector Interface (MDI)	Rogelio Tomas, Glen White, Toshiaki Tauchi and Lau Gatignon	
AC 3	Luminosity Performance	Andrea Latina, Nikolay Solyak, Kiyoshi Kubo	
AC 4	SCRF Linac Technology	Wolf-Dietrich Moeller, Hitoshi Hayano and Rongli Geng	
AC 5	Accelerator Design and Integration	Marc Ross, Akira Yamamoto and Olivier Napoly.	

The charge for each group is to update the technical status presented in the Design Reports, comment on outstanding issues and develop plans for the coming three year period. Three of the working groups have programs with strong CLIC / ILC commonality: AC 1 Injector Systems, AC 2 Beam Delivery System and Machine-Detector Interface and AC 3 Luminosity Performance. For these working groups, especially, development and optimization of a few-year long common CLIC / ILC program should be discussed and reported. Also for the Accelerator Design and Integration working group, AC 5, there is an important common CLIC / ILC task to evaluate and improve estimated electrical power consumption and efficiency.
 
Working group AC 5 covers management – related topics that affect the entire team. One session, to be called ‘ADI Plenary session’, will be reserved for AC 5 to meet jointly (together) with the other four AC working groups.
 
Some specific working group goals are:
 
AC 1: Working group AC 1 should review source and damping ring  R & D priorities. The working group should evaluate and summarize progress on alternate positron source schemes, such as the high – repetition rate 300 Hz normal-conducting linac based scheme under study by the KEK - led group.
 
AC 2: Working group AC 2 should review needed beam delivery system and MDI design and R & D work. Recent analysis and results from the ATF-II at KEK should be summarized and lessons-learned should be reported by the working group.
 
AC 3: Working group AC 3 should reassess the performance claims described in the CLIC / ILC Design Reports with special attention to luminosity estimates and feedback system performance. The working group should participate in the discussion of ATF-II ‘lessons-learned’ and should recommend future work to be undertaken for CLIC / ILC at ATF – II and should consider options for experiments at other facilities.
 
AC 4: Working group AC 4 should present plans for strengthening links between the ILC - SCRF group and the EU-XFEL project. We expect the EU-XFEL cavity and cryomodule industrial production rate to reach its peak in the next year or so and the ILC – SCRF group must plan a practical (and mutually beneficial) working relationship to take advantage of the information generated through this substantial activity. SCRF linac supporting technology (for example HLRF generation and distribution) studies should be reviewed and progress should be reported. Following up on recommendations made in the December 2012 Project Advisory Committee report, the working group should develop a program to study and improve coupler and tuner performance and cost.
 
AC 5: Working group AC 5 should discuss several topics including 1) CFS, 2) System-wide design status, 3) EDMS, 4) Project Implementation and Planning, and 5) Integration. For CFS, the working group should review outstanding issues, compare CLIC and ILC power consumption ‘drivers’ and discuss performance improvements, and discuss site studies to be considered following the conclusion of the site selection recommendation activity in Japan. In addition to talking about geological survey results and site prioritization issues, the latter should include discussions of the main campus  buildings and laboratory land, and should review the scale of the laboratory in terms of number of employees, visitors, sub-contractors etc..  The Installation planning and cost estimate described in the TDR were identified in recent reviews as outstanding issues needing further attention and this should also be discussed in the CFS session. For system-wide design status, the working group should consider issues such as machine protection and timing constraints. For EDMS, the working group should review the aggregate collection of TDR documentation in the Team-Center repository and summarize and report on missing or out-of-date information. For Project Implementation and Planning, the working group should outline in-kind contribution considerations and constraints. The working group should consider hub-lab infrastructure capabilities and review plug-compatibility interface definitions, especially as these must be broadened to include accelerator equipment beyond SCRF. Finally for Integration, the working group should consider system interface definition and propose in-kind contribution definition schemes.