Internationally UNO would be perceived as a threat. As UNO is intended to provide global leadership for optics, the design allows foreign organizations to become an integral part of the new organization by making the same sacrifices demanded of OSA and SPIE, namely transfer of all financial assets, staff, and a degree of autonomy to the UNO governing structure. Because of this UNO might well be regarded with considerable suspicion abroad, and thus might actually be harmful to international collaboration. SPIE and OSA are in competition for members. If one or other of the societies fails to react with sufficient flexibility to the needs of a technical innovation or a newly emerging grouping of optical professionals, then in all likelihood the other society would seize the opportunity to fulfill those needs.
Competition makes member services more responsive in both societies.
Under UNO the spur of competition in this area would be gone. Instead of the sort of competition that makes both societies more reactive to members' needs, we will have fierce competition within UNO for staff and resources. Both opposition groups urge interested members to study the issues and make their thoughts and concerns known to their respective boards. The merger issue will probably be sent to a membership vote without an alternative. It is not too late to change this.