General:  
Steve characterized SETI as a "super-LOFAR" project at the Groningen
meeting.  I know that he's taken a bit of grief for his separation of
the various Level 1 projects into "super-LOFAR," SKA, and
"super-ALMA."  I happen to think that it was a useful exercise, just
that SETI was placed into the wrong category.  First, the current goal
of microwave SETI is to probe the 1--10 GHz part of the spectrum.
That puts it firmly in the centimeter-wavelength regime of the SKA.
Second, the crucial aspect of SETI is its time-domain analysis.  The
current generation of interferometers doesn't do a particularly good
job of time-domain analysis, but that's not (today) a limitation of
interferometry nor of their wavelength.  It's a limitation imposed by
their design and hardware.  The ATA and LOFAR should be the first to
change this paradigm, but I wouldn't characterize SETI as
"super-LOFAR" science as a result of that.

China:
 reponse time: change to meet
 frequency range: change to fail/meet; it covers a good chunk of the
                  frequency range, and higher frequencies probably
                  available albeit at lower sensitivity
 maximum baseline: change to meet
 spatial DNR: change to meet

Europe:
 maximum baseline: change to meet

India:
 reponse time: change to meet
 frequency range: change to meet

Ozlens:
 reponse time: change to meet   
 frequency range: change to fail/meet; it covers a good chunk of the
                  frequency range, and higher frequencies probably
                  available albeit at lower sensitivity

Ozcylinders:
 reponse time: change to meet   
 frequency range: change to fail/meet; it covers a good chunk of the
                  frequency range, and higher frequencies probably
                  available albeit at lower sensitivity

USA:
 reponse time: change to meet   

Canada:
 reponse time: change to meet   
 spatial DNR: change to meet



SR amended China and Canada to 2 for consistency with other working groups