1. Globalization Working Group International Steering Structure of the Lab Operation of the Lab Career Issues Veronique Boisvert, John Krane, Gudrid Moortgat-Pick, Thomas Nunnemann, Manuel Toharia, Mark Palmer, Matthew Sharp, Wolfgang Walkowiak with Mary Bishai, Edward McKigney, Please consult our Working Documents 7/3/01 for full discussion of issues.

2. International Steering Wanted to gauge the support for international advisory groups, such as ICFA. general advice to the field and to governments (help find consensus) selecting the next very large facility (bypass general consensus?) funding power for very large projects only, for a limited time span National programs continue unaffected

3. International Steering Should funding agencies rely more heavily on advisory bodies like ICFA, GAN, etc.? Yes: ~50%, No: a few, Abstain: ~50% (inferred) Do you think an international committee should determine the type/location of the next machine? Yes, Abstain: similar numbers, No: a few Should an international group eventually have funding power? Yes: a few, No: a few, Abstain: majority Results show both support and hesitancy

4. Structure of an International Lab The next frontier facility can take several organizational forms, each with advantages and disadvantages: National lab model: easy to implement but might be more susceptible to politics. (Setup like FNAL, DESY) Shared international organization: GAN-like Each nation has representatives on a council, share construction and operation costs (or provide same value through equipment) Autonomous organization: CERN model politically difficult (treaty required), might be optimal in principle.

5. Structure of an International Lab National organization + contributions FNAL or DESY-likeSelected by: 10 Shared organization All nations contribute to construction, operation, staff TESLA or GAN-like Selected by: 30 Self-organization All nations contribute to an international organization, which autonomously runs the projects CERN-likeSelected by: 10-15 Shared model was most accepted

6. Operation of an International Lab GAN has proposed regional centers that have remote control rooms, excellent (permanent?) video conferencing, and data analysis and storage capability. Could this work from both a technological and sociological standpoint? RC at national labs ensure involvement, expertise will stay in country; local hardware facility is another benefit. University-based RC’s might not need the hardware capability – smaller, cheaper, yet provides the education currently available only at the labs. Will a single new facility result in less vigorous research programs in nations far from the site?

7. Operation of an International Lab Would funds now bypass universities? Less hands-on experience for young physicists? -> University-based RC’s could help. YesNoAbstain Acceler. Control 20 15 Experim. Analyses 3516Didn’t ask Experim. Control 153010 Response was conservative.  less risky? Are regional centers viable, desirable solution for

8. National labs should keep a strong role. Frequency of RC vs labs Some survey results

9. Most feel detector proximity is very important. Regional centers make things “easier” (if they become viable)

10. Career Issues European physicists easily work in foreign countries, including the US, and assume it will be done. Attitude differs in US. Many US citizens expressed pride a the high rate of immigration -> few barriers to entry and permanent jobs. Apparently, EU has rules making Univ. positions difficult to obtain by US citizens. Support for a foreign language requirement for physics majors. No votes, only discussion