1. Input-1 From: "Jack Steinberger" Dear Strategy council, I suggest that it would be good for CERN to have some clear commitment to the support of a small group interested in astrophysics and cosmology. A good example is Fermi lab, which in my humble opinion has benefited a good deal from this, given the close symbiosis of particle and astro physics, and the slow advance in particle physics these days. Best wishes, Jack.

2. Input-2 Dear sir/madam, I would like to voice a couple of views about European particle physics as a response to the invitation on the CERN Council Strategy web-page. I believe that the community must be ready to act on LHC data, to be ready to either build, or at least have a heavy involvement with, any future linear collider project, wherever it may be in the world. I believe that involvement with the world’s frontier colliders (such as the LHC and indeed post-LHC) is essential for Europe, provided of course that the research issuing from them continues to be exciting. On the question of whether it is a good idea for member states to set up their own particle theory institutes, I suggest that the involvement of experimental groups will be essential. There is a danger that theory will become more and more removed from data if too many separate theory groups are set up; I think that interaction between theory and experimental groups has been dwindling for years. However, exciting new data is likely to shock this trend, especially if there are strange unexplained results. The potential benefits to any particle physics institutes of having theorists and experimenters together is obvious. It could well be true that it is possible to investigate cosmological phenomena in particle collisions (for example, by producing dark matter particles). It would then seem expedient to have cosmologists or astro-particle physicists also involved in any such institute. One might suppose in todays internet-friendly that what groups are grouped together in departments or buildings is unimportant given the ease of sharing information (for example by building “virtual institutes”). However, I think that this is not the case, being able to think of many examples where the existence of seperate institutes, even in the same town, discourages what could have been a very advantageous collaboration. Having a familiar experimenter or theorist “just down the corridor” has a real and noticeable effect on research that is performed as well as the knowledge of researchers. I personally would like to see CERN as a fundamental science laboratory continue after the LHC. CLIC is potentially a very worthwhile project and I support the R&D effort into it strongly. After all, if we find that interesting new physics in LHC data is all in the range of, say, 1-2 TeV, a 500 GeV-800 GeV ILC begins to look of limited importance (although no doubt interesting and important measurements can still be made of the Higgs and top particles). Aside from the far- future CLIC possibility, the CERN laboratory could also play a useful role in neutrino physics, for example. Best regards, Ben Allanach

3. Input-3: SuperB factory

4. Input-4  Three papers on the physics potential of a Megatonne class Water Cerenkov (Frejus) –Super Proton Linac based (anti)  Super Beam –.  = 100x100 baseline scenario of the Beta beam electron (anti) beam from Neon and Helium radioactive nuclei –Usage of the for free Atmospheric ’s to disentangle degeneracies  From: –Jean-Eric Campagne LAL-IN2P3/CNRS- France –Mauro Mezzetto Padova-INFN-Italie –Thomas Schwetz SISSA-Italie