= 0$ and $\tan\beta = 10$ in the cMSSM; from [@Heinemeyer:2004xw]. (b) Scatter plot of the masses of the LVSP and the NLVSP in the cMSSM; from [@Ellis:2004bx]. (c) Scatter plot of the masses $m_1$=$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ and $m_2$=$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ of cMSSM models satisfying $\tan\beta$ = 10, 20, 35 and $A_0=0$. (d) $\chi^2$ fits based on the current experimental EW precision observables and DM constraints as functions of $m_{1/2}$ in the cMSSM for different $A_0$, $\tan\beta = 10$; from [@Heinemeyer:2004xw].[]{data-label="fig:cmssm"}](fit.eps "fig:"){width="3.9cm" height="3.8cm"}

However, nothing tells us that the cMSSM is the right framework (most probably it is not). As discussed during the meeting the parameter space widens very much when model assumptions are relaxed and many ’crazy’ scenarios are possible [@Baer]. For example, if the Higgs and scalar mass parameters at the GUT scale are different, $m^2_{H_u}=m^2_{H_d}\neq m^2_0$, two solutions for relic density are found: one is neutralino annihilation via heavy Higgs resonance even at low values of $\tan\beta$, while the other is neutralino annihilation via higgsino components at low values of $m_0$ [@Baer:2005bu]. Breaking the $m^2_{H_u}=m^2_{H_d}$ relation opens the light squark/slepton co-annihilation regions etc. This indicates how important will be to determine SUSY breaking parameters from future experimental measurements with minimum number 