IUF Memberships

General
1

>

>Jack Halpern wrote:

>"And I do my best to inform them. I once sent out materials on UNICON

>to all board members,

>and the JUA managers were pissed at me since someone complained about

>why it is coming from

>me, and not the JUA. And they of course forced to stop using the
Japanese

>equivalent of

>“Inc.” after IUF, since it “will confuse riders”, who should knao

>that there is only one

>official incorporated organization…"

John Foss replied:

>The JUA is not only a corporation (with whatever that implies in
Japanese law),

>but has a big budget, big corporations and big politics. Mostly a big
budget.

>Therefore they don’t want their members to think the JUA answers to the
IUF. I

>guess. Can’t blame them.

I think that the only thing that size has to do is that they are trying to
protect their territory. They don’t want the IUF or anybody else competing
with them. If the IUF had a larger budget, the problem would have been larger,
not smaller.

Anyway, I don’t believe that the IUF should be too large. Most things should be
done locally. I don’t want the IUF to impose anything on me in Puerto Rico
unless I ask.

I agree with the JUA, ideally the IUF should be serving, not competing
with, them.

The problem is that they have not affiliated with us. We should use this
situation to clarify roles.

What do we have to offer? The globalization of unicycling. The specifics depends
on the members (preferably National associations like Japan and clubs) and the
budgets they give us. <underline>Almost nothing</underline> can be done and
sustain without a budget. Anyway, to mention some specifics, there is: 1) the
UNICON, 2) two way communications and promotion, whether to let the rest of the
world know about an individual, organization, or activity going on Japan or let
Japan know about what is going on in the rest of the world. 3) Development and
standardization of Rules. Be racing, artistic, hockey, basketball or others.

  1. Interchange of ideas of what you can do in unicycles 5) All the other
    services that the members might suggest.

Going back to Jack’s comment, the JUA is complaining because Jack went with the
IUF name straight to the Board members and something filtered down to the
riders. The JUA did not want the riders to know that there was another
association. I think that as long as the JUA does not have an affiliation
agreement, Jack did nothing wrong. To avoid the situation in the future, let’s
negotiate an agreement.

<excerpt>On 5 Jan 98 Jack Halpern replied to Wolfgang:

Actually, I have tried to get the JUA to join as a member and pay so much

per JUA member, but those proposals were not real enough at the time. That

is, theyu asked me: who else is paying and how much? And you know the

</excerpt>answer to that one…

For the newcomers, the proposal the IUF made for National Associations was US$1
per person per member per year, with a $100 minimum per country. So the IUF is
really not asking too much. Over a year ago, Jack wrote that the JUA could be
interested in paying a couple of thousand of US dollars. Puerto Rico said that
we were willing to pay our proportional part. Everything fell down then because
the leaders of the USA refused to propose the matter to their organization. The
yearly total for all the USA would have been about US$780. There actually are
more members because some memberships are per family. To my best knowledge, the
USA have never rejected the IUF. Their leaders have refused to put the subject
on the agenda.

For countries without National Associations, the clubs could affiliate for the
US$1 per member per year with US$30 minimum. Individual memberships for persons
non affiliated would have been about US$20 per year.

If somebody disagrees with my perception, s(he)should clarify it.

One thing we must have clear, this is not a political campaign and we are not
selling products for profit. This is our association. We do have to fine-tune
our vision and our mission. But the specific programs that we run depends on the
wishes of, you, whoever become a member and they will be implemented by whoever
you choose to do it, according to the budget assigned by you to the IUF until
such time that the IUF can generate outside income.

This has been a very divisive subject in the past. If we are going again thru
the pain, we should not shelve it, but go ahead until it is resolved.

Alberto Ruiz

IUF President

ruizb@coqui.net

Alberto Ruiz

ruizb@coqui.net

2

Re: IUF Memberships

At 09:24 20/01/98 -0600, Andy Cotter wrote:

>
>I assume the leaders the you are refering to are Connie and I. With a statement
>worded as such, you are bound to get some sort of response from
>me. Here are some quick points of my opinion about the above statment:

I did not want to bring names, I did want to provoke a response to get things
moving, but the USA Officer that came against the proposal thru the Internet was
indeed you. I do not recall Connie writing anything in the Internet, maybe she
talked in private to you.

>
>* Connie and I were not aware that the USA was the cornerstone to the IUF
> proposal.

The USA is not the cornerstone, the whole world is. But, as you know, up to
recently, the USA, Japan, and Puerto Rico dominated the IUF decision-making
teams. It seems that we are not moving because when one nation sends a signal
the other nation steps back. Europe (and Australia) seems to be organized by
club, not by nation. Maybe that is the way to go in Japan and the USA.

Personally, I think that we are better off going thru the USA and JUA. I also
believe that the USA and JUA should prefer that we go thru them and not directly
to the clubs. If so, they should be more pro-active than just wait and then
complain if something goes directly from the IUF to the clubs like what Jack
reported from Japan.

>If the USA was so important to making the proposal work, then I think we should
>have been asked what would it take to make it work.

What is it that the USA wants that can be done within the budget that the
members assign?

>
>* The amount of $780 per year is more than the USA has in extra funds. In order
> to come with that amount on a yearly basis, USA dues would have to be raised.

The raise because of the IUF dues would have been $1 per year, or about 3%
increase. The globalization of unicycling was the extra value that should raise
the value of a USA membership. Two things might be happening here: One is that
the USA, and Puerto Rico, and Japan, and Europe are getting some of these things
for free already because persons like you, John Foss, Jack, Ken, myself, and
others are spending our own time and money off our pocket. The other thing is
that because of that, many other things are not getting done the way they should
when they should.

> In order for dues to be raised, the issue would have to be brought up to the
> USA general meeting. We (including the president of the USA) all decided that
> the proposal as it currenly stands didn’t have a chance of passing.

The proposal as it now stands is for a $1/per member/per year. You keep talking
of the IUF as a party totally apart of the USA. The USA, along with Europe,
Japan, Australia, and Puerto Rico are the IUF. It is an on-going process where
the USA will have an on-going influence.

>Therefore we didn’t propose it. But, any member of the USA could have brought
>it up. And, as I recall, there were two officers of the IUF at the last USA
>meeting (the president of the IUF and the secretary/treasurer of the IUF) and
>they could have proposed the plan. Because the IUF officers didn’t propose the
>idea at the general USA meeting, they also rejected the proposal.

Right, I hope they will also bring it up. Remember, I did not include names.

>
>* With paying the sum of $780 there was certain rights and privileges that
> would be awarded to the USA. Most were inconsequential or future looking
> ideas. One of the more major benefits of the proposal was the IUF newsletter.
> As I understood of the proposal, the IUF newsletter was a major part of the
> IUF proposal. To date, there has been no IUF newsletter.

The IUF newsletter is an idea that has been proposed. Personally, I believe
that the IUF is responsible for recompiling, generating, and distributing
unicycling news and articles. Having our own newsletter is one of the
alternatives to achieve that. I don’t believe that the existence of the IUF
should depend on whether a newsletter is done or not. That is putting the cart
in front of the ox. If the IUF members want a separate newsletter with its
implications $$$ (instead of say, providing interesting news to OOW, Jean
Ascher’s new publication, JUAs publication, etc.), then we should have a
newsletter. We can have a workshop teaching clubs to do newsletters with local
info and attaching the news that the IUF provides, etc. But, again, these are
details. Whatever is done will depend on what the members want to do for the
money they (we) want to spend.

>Also, the first IUF newsletter was to be free. So, we decided to wait until the
>first issue was released before making any further decisions. It is a good
>thing we waited.

I did not hear that the first English version would be free until last week, but
maybe I was just not paying attention to those details. There was an Spanish IUF
newsletter printed in Spanish last year. I sent it free. Maybe it was just too
lousy, but I got no response whatsoever.

>
>If the USA is going to be the cornerstone to the IUF proposal, then maybe
>before the proposal is passed, the USA should be consulted. I am 100% behind
>the IUF, but I’m not going to personally put a proposal to the USA unless I
>think it will work. Instead of pushing a proposal down our throat, maybe the
>IUF should find what the USA is willing to do.

We are not trying to push a proposal down anybody’s throat. If the USA wants to
make some pre-requisites to joining, what are those pre-requisites? We do want
to know. Please tell us. I prefer to go thru the USA and JUA. But if they are
not interested and they believe we are just pushing things down their throat,
the IUF should then decide whether to contact the clubs directly.
>
>One final point, the IUF currenlty has about $400 in its saving account. That
>number has not changed for at least the last five years. Meaning that the IUF
>does not have any day to day operating costs. In order for me to personally put
>forth a proposal of becoming an IUF affliated national organization, I would
>like to see a business plan or something similar of what the IUF plans to do
>with the money.

We do need a business plan. I have experience with that. I need to know
basically two things, where are we heading, and what type of budget we can count
on to get there. That is precisely what I am trying to find out. If the USA
becomes a member, they should know what the IUF does with the money. Not only
this year, but every year after that. The USA will not only know, the USA will
have a say about it. But how is the IUF going to start moving toward the
increasing expectations, if nobody wants to hop in until they see it moving,
even if they will participate in the steering.

Basically we have three alternatives.

  1. Going thru National Associations and clubs when NA are not available. Our
    main task will be to give support to our member organizations. We will be the
    globalization of unicycling for them. If a NA does not want to affiliate to
    the IUF, the IUF does not recognize it and will be free to contact the clubs.
    Something has to be worked out for non-affiliated riders. This is my favorite
    alternative. And the cheapest at only $1/per person/per member. Provisions
    have to be made for small countries like PR (say a $100 minimum) and large
    country like Japan, like say a $3,000. top. Individual clubs will have a $30
    minimum. The USA, with the support of the IUF, has the potential of topping
    off in the future. The IUF does not have to be large, nor be a big spender.
    It is OK if all the members are larger than the IUF. That could mean that we
    are giving them proper support.

  2. We go after individual members. We will, in effect, be competing against
    clubs and NA. This is my least favorite alternative. Because of the
    tremendous duplication of efforts, it will be awful expensive to everybody. I
    also believe that most things get done at the local level. I rather support
    them than compete against them. Like I said in the past, I don’t want the IUF
    to tell me what to do in Puerto Rico. I want the IUF to give me support.
    Individual memberships will have to be much higher, probably about $20/per
    year. Some people may not be willing to pay both the IUF and their club
    and/or NA, so we will be thinning each other out.

  3. We keep doing things like we are now. Lots of things are done right thanks to
    the help of many persons. Other things are not done because we do not have a
    budget and depend on volunteers. Yet we have done a lot of progress, seems
    that most persons enjoy and respect the IUF. My only petition is for people
    to refrain from asking too much.

As I said my order of preference is 1,3 and 2. I can live with all of them. Each
one has different consequences. I just hope that everybody accepts the
consequences of their decision.

Alberto Ruiz IUF President ruizb@coqui.net

Alberto Ruiz ruizb@coqui.net

3

Re: IUF Memberships

Hi folks,

Lots of good rhetoric being tossed around (aren’t we good at that?) with good
ideas. I’ll take a stab at adding something.

Single bracket quotes are from Seth Golub: Double bracket quotes are from
Alberto Ruiz:

>> The globalization of unicycling was the extra value that should raise the
>> value of a USA membership.
>
>This seems to be the only thing the IUF is offering, but I don’t know what it
>means or how it would help me. If this were the entire sales pitch, I wouldn’t
>go for it, even for $1/year, because I don’t see any benefit at all. Can you be
>more specific?

I’m quoting Seth because he’s not someone who’s been involved in this stuff for
years. He sees it from an outside perspective and this is a more real view. How
does “globalization” affect him? It doesn’t, at least as far as he can tell. If
it were better defined, he might see some benefit, but how much really depends
on that definition.

>You make it very clear that the IUF is searching for a demand it could satisfy,
>thereby creating a reason for its continued existence. Until it does offer
>valuable services or products, I can’t imagine why any individual or regional
>organization would pay to be a member or affiliate.

That’s right. Of course USA or JUA aren’t just going to hand us money. What are
they giving the money for? We should stop worrying about money until we answer
that question. It will be part of our business plan, along with the budget that
tells exactly how the money is to be spent.

Alberto had the very good idea of doing a survey to figure out what people want
from the IUF and what the IUF can do to fill those needs.

We would like to have a newsletter. But we have no newsletter editor, and I
don’t see any on the horizon. Also, I proposed that people write articles, just
to see what we come up with that might be turned into a newsletter. Number of
articles received - 0. In fact, the only response of any kind to that post was
Rolf Sander offering to give hockey information (but no article).

So let’s stop worrying about money and a newsletter for the moment, and focus on
a survey. A general collection of ideas for what the IUF should or can do.

We should not be bogged down by our corporate mission statement, which says we
must work toward Olympic status. Almost anything we do will head us in that
direction anyway, so it’s definitely nothing to worry about in the near future.

Let’s ask the NA’s, the clubs, and individual riders what they want. The answers
might be really interesting? Let’s put our heads together to figure out what
should be on our survey.

Ideas?

For Seth:
>You mentioned a newsletter. If there are unicycling stories that you (or
>others) think should be covered in a newsletter, you can either start one up or
>sumbit them to OOW. If you (or others) feel that global distribution of OOW is
>not being adequately addressed, you could try to remedy that, or start a
>separate newsletter.

The USA’s mission statement is specific in that it applies to this country only.
Of course we have had an international audience for years, but the main focus
should always be on the US. Also it’s only in English. There is no formal
connection between the USA and the other NA’s to share stories and information.

For all:
>Some people might want to see unicyclists in the news. If that’s the case,
>helping the sport get more publicity (directly or by organizing and/or advising
>locals) would be a valuable service.

Yes. Now there’s an idea.

>Ways to meet other unicyclists, convenient ways to buy, rent, try unicycles or
>parts might be valuable to many people.

I think this is closer to what the average unicyclist needs.

>You mentioned doing a market survey to determine the needs you might be able to
>address. I think that’s a good idea, and I wish you the best of luck. I sugest
>not trying to sell the organization to regional clubs again until you know what
>you are trying to sell.

Exactly.

So let’s put together a survey and start distributing it everywhere we can,
especially to those not connected to the Internet!

John Foss, Director International Unicycling Federation www.calweb.com/~unifoss

4

Re: IUF Memberships

John Foss:
>
>I’m quoting Seth because he’s not someone who’s been involved in this stuff for
>years. He sees it from an outside perspective and this is a more real view. How
>does “globalization” affect him?

Alberto It already has ,i.e. the UNICONs, the Rules, most of the neat skills he
has seen around for the first time in the last 10 years. Unihockey,
Unibasketball, MUNI, improving the UNIs, lots of the articles he has read in
different newsletter. The IUF has been doing lots of stuff for him already, thru
other organizations, but without any credit given to the IUF. Remember, the IUF
is people. And lots of these people in all corners of the world has done lots of
work so that Seth has all the uni goodies that he takes for granted.
>
Seth:

>>You make it very clear that the IUF is searching for a demand it could
>>satisfy, thereby creating a reason for its continued existence.

Alberto: That is what you are saying. What I am saying is that we should
identify more precisely that demand. The reason for our existence does not have
to be created. It exists. That is why the IUF has been able to grow and develop
despite having no budget.

Seth:
>>Until it does offer valuable services or products, I can’t imagine why any
>>individual or regional organization would pay to be a member or affiliate.
>
John:
>That’s right. Of course USA or JUA aren’t just going to hand us money. What are
>they giving the money for?

Alberto: They should not just hand down money, we should keep supporting them,
and they should pay the cost of that support. The volunteers that do the work
for free,should not additionally have to pay the expenses off their pocket. As
for what they are giving the money for, please read a couple of paragraphs
above. Remember, nobody is asking the USA or JUA to do anything that Puerto
Rico, Europe, Canada, Australia also will do. I am afraid of giving examples.
The members, not me, will decide what the money will actually be used for.
Somebody can use an example as a bad excuse to prove a pre-conceived idea. If I
say for a newsletter, they might say that we have to do the newsletter before.

John:
>
>Alberto had the very good idea of doing a survey to figure out what people want
>from the IUF and what the IUF can do to fill those needs.

Alberto: A budget does not have to cost too much money, but it cost some money,
and a lot of work. I believe that it must be done anyway. The info gathered will
help not only the IUF, but also the National organizations and the clubs. That
is OK, the IUF should give support to them and help them achieve their goals.
But I am concerned that once again they will take the benefits, use them and
when is time to pay the costs of the IUF they will say, keep proving that we
need you. That is not OK.

John:
>We would like to have a newsletter. But we have no newsletter editor, and I
>don’t see any on the horizon. Also, I proposed that people write articles, just
>to see what we come up with that might be turned into a newsletter. Number of
>articles received - 0. In fact, the only response of any kind to that post was
>Rolf Sander offering to give hockey information (but no article).

Alberto: Some people believe that a newsletter has to be one of the services
provided by the IUF. I believe that the generation and collection of news and
then the dissemination of them thru the world should be the service. Our
newsletter is one of the alternatives to achieve that. This item should be in
the survey.

John:
>
>So let’s stop worrying about money and a newsletter for the moment, and focus
>on a survey. A general collection of ideas for what the IUF should or can do.
>
>We should not be bogged down by our corporate mission statement, which says we
>must work toward Olympic status. Almost anything we do will head us in that
>direction anyway, so it’s definitely nothing to worry about in the near future.

John: We should examine our mission statement and rewrite it. Once we have an
adequate one, we should be bogged down by it. Because that is what we should
check situations against when we are trying to get a consensus out of differing
opinions, like right now.

>
Seth:
>You mentioned doing a market survey to determine the needs you might
>>be able to address. I think that’s a good idea, and I wish you the best
>>of luck.
Alberto: Thanks.

Seth:
>>I sugest not trying to sell the organization to regional clubs again until you
>>know what you are trying to sell.

Alberto: I am not trying to sell anything. They must see the vision. Again,
whether they realize it or not, they have been getting benefits of the IUF
already. You mention some of them below. Maybe we should stay like we are now
until the survey is done. I like the IUF like it is, even if I want to improve
it. But if so, people should keep their expectancies low. The IUF should go up
to the next level. It will be able to do so only when we solve our structure,
mission, membership, and dues situation. When you start a business you invest
your own money hoping to make money out of it. The JUA is a business, the IUF
is not. The IUF will work only if several people share a vision, and start
pushing the bandwagon. That already happened. Lots of work has been done by
lots of people that have benefited lots of unicyclists and organizations. There
have been lots of pushing and motion. It is time for these organizations to see
the vision and help push. I am not sure that we can do much more with our
present structure and no budget. Yes, they will have a say on defining the IUF
mission. Yes, they will have a say on how we spend our small budget when we get
one. There is so much more that we can do. But only if these organizations
share the vision.

John:
>
>So let’s put together a survey and start distributing it everywhere we can,
>especially to those not connected to the Internet!
>
>
>John Foss, Director International Unicycling Federation www.calweb.com/~unifoss
>
Alberto Ruiz President, IUF ruizb@coqui.net Alberto Ruiz ruizb@coqui.net

5

Re: IUF Memberships

Um, I’m finding this fascinating but am starting to detect signs of
fanaticism (ulp! :))

I learnt to ride about 15 years ago and work as a juggler/unicyclist (not
clown). I don’t know Seth but support his view. To Alberto I would suggest that
the ‘benefits’ he mentions do not nessessarily exist. I certainly have seen
none of them.

I have a bit of (bitter) experience attempting to organize a structure for a
sparse population (which the IUF would seem to be). Its quite difficult.

Best of Luck, Martin Hungerford.

>John Foss:
>>
>>I’m quoting Seth because he’s not someone who’s been involved in this
stuff
>>for years. He sees it from an outside perspective and this is a more real
>>view. How does “globalization” affect him?
>
>
>Alberto It already has ,i.e. the UNICONs, the Rules, most of the neat
>skills he has seen around for the first time in the last 10 years.
>Unihockey, Unibasketball, MUNI, improving the UNIs, lots of the articles he
>has read in different newsletter. The IUF has been doing lots of stuff for
>him already, thru other organizations, but without any credit given to the
>IUF. Remember, the IUF is people. And lots of these people in all corners
>of the world has done lots of work so that Seth has all the uni goodies
>that he takes for granted.
>

6

Re: IUF Memberships

On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Alberto Ruiz wrote:

<much stuff deleted on the IUF memberships>

> Everything fell down then because the leaders of the USA refused to propose
> the matter to their organization. The yearly total for all the USA would have
> been about US$780. There actually are more members because some memberships
> are per family. To my best knowledge, the USA have never rejected the IUF.
> Their leaders have refused to put the subject on the agenda.

I assume the leaders the you are refering to are Connie and I. With a statement
worded as such, you are bound to get some sort of response from
me. Here are some quick points of my opinion about the above statment:

  • Connie and I were not aware that the USA was the cornerstone to the IUF
    proposal. If the USA was so important to making the proposal work, then I
    think we should have been asked what would it take to make it work.

  • The amount of $780 per year is more than the USA has in extra funds. In order
    to come with that amount on a yearly basis, USA dues would have to be raised.
    In order for dues to be raised, the issue would have to be brought up to the
    USA general meeting. We (including the president of the USA) all decided that
    the proposal as it currenly stands didn’t have a chance of passing. Therefore
    we didn’t propose it. But, any member of the USA could have brought it up.
    And, as I recall, there were two officers of the IUF at the last USA meeting
    (the president of the IUF and the secretary/treasurer of the IUF) and they
    could have proposed the plan. Because the IUF officers didn’t propose the idea
    at the general USA meeting, they also rejected the proposal.

  • With paying the sum of $780 there was certain rights and privileges that would
    be awarded to the USA. Most were inconsequential or future looking ideas. One
    of the more major benefits of the proposal was the IUF newsletter. As I
    understood of the proposal, the IUF newsletter was a major part of the IUF
    proposal. To date, there has been no IUF newsletter. Also, the first IUF
    newsletter was to be free. So, we decided to wait until the first issue was
    released before making any further decisions. It is a good thing we waited.

If the USA is going to be the cornerstone to the IUF proposal, then maybe before
the proposal is passed, the USA should be consulted. I am 100% behind the IUF,
but I’m not going to personally put a proposal to the USA unless I think it will
work. Instead of pushing a proposal down our throat, maybe the IUF should find
what the USA is willing to do. Monetary amounts can start small and if needed
can be increased with time but $780 is a lot of start-up money. I can’t even
imagine what the JUA (Japan Unicycling Association) would say about a $1 per
member (especially with the yen doing so poorly against the dollar).

One final point, the IUF currenlty has about $400 in its saving account. That
number has not changed for at least the last five years. Meaning that the IUF
does not have any day to day operating costs. In order for me to personally put
forth a proposal of becoming an IUF affliated national organization, I would
like to see a business plan or something similar of what the IUF plans to do
with the money. While I have no problem having the USA give some money to the
IUF, I don’t want the money to be deposited in the IUF treasurey and not be
used. I myself would donate money to the IUF if I thought they needed money (I
currently donate my time to the IUF). I personally donate extra money to USA
Championship Club on a yearly basis and I have donated money to a couple of
past UNICONs.

In conclusion, I am willing to work with the IUF in making a proposal that will
work with the USA.

cotter@skypoint.com Twin City Unicycle Club - President Andy Cotter Unicycling
Society of America - Vice President USA home page http://www.unicycling.org/usa/

1998 Return-Path: unicycling-owner@icicle.winternet.com Received: from
icicle.winternet.com (icicle.winternet.com [198.174.169.13]) by myco.isd.net
(8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA23221 for <gilby@isd.net>; Tue, 20 Jan 1998
11:46:32 -0600 Received: (from server@localhost) by icicle.winternet.com
(8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06195 for unicycling-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:38:40
-0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: icicle.winternet.com: server set sender
to owner-unicycling using -f Received: (from adm@localhost) by
icicle.winternet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06018 for <unicycling@winternet.com>;
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:38:03 -0600 (CST) From: simon.greenway@roke.co.uk Received:
from ccmail.roke.co.uk(193.118.192.1) by icicle.winternet.com via smap (V2.0)
id xma005793; Tue, 20 Jan 98 10:37:12 -0600 Received: from sage.roke.co.uk by
mustard.roke.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:32:24 +0000 Received:
from ccMail by sage.roke.co.uk (SMTPLINK V2.11) id AA885335807; Tue, 20 Jan 98
16:32:12 gmt Date: Tue, 20 Jan 98 16:32:12 gmt Message-Id:
<9800208853.AA885335807@sage.roke.co.uk> To: unicycling@winternet.com
Cc: Vernon.Middleton@roke.co.uk Subject: MWheel (Mountain Ultimate Wheel)
Sender: owner-unicycling@winternet.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To:
simon.greenway@roke.co.uk

 Has anybody ever tried this ? Is there such a thing ?

 If so what were your experiences ?

 Simon.

 ---------------------------------+--------------------------------- Simon
 Greenway | I.o.U o E-mail:simon.greenway@roke.co.uk | /#\
 Romsey,Hampshire,UK. | Idiots On Unicycles |
                                  |                           O
 ---------------------------------+---------------------------------
 W.W.W. : new MUni pages very very soon indeed . . . . . .
        ---------------------------------+---------------------------------
7

Re: IUF Memberships

Alberto Ruiz <ruizb@coqui.net> writes:

> The globalization of unicycling was the extra value that should raise the
> value of a USA membership.

This seems to be the only thing the IUF is offering, but I don’t know what it
means or how it would help me. If this were the entire sales pitch, I wouldn’t
go for it, even for $1/year, because I don’t see any benefit at all. Can you be
more specific?

The USA would hardly have needed to resort to malice or even negligence to turn
down an IUF that asked for money in return for only “the globalization of
unicycling”.

You make it very clear that the IUF is searching for a demand it could satisfy,
thereby creating a reason for its continued existence. Until it does offer
valuable services or products, I can’t imagine why any individual or regional
organization would pay to be a member or affiliate.

This isn’t a shameful failure though. It just means that unicyclists aren’t
aware of any desires an international organization might be able to satisfy for
a reasonable amount of money.

You mentioned a newsletter. If there are unicycling stories that you (or others)
think should be covered in a newsletter, you can either start one up or sumbit
them to OOW. If you (or others) feel that global distribution of OOW is not
being adequately addressed, you could try to remedy that, or start a separate
newsletter.

Some people might want to see unicyclists in the news. If that’s the case,
helping the sport get more publicity (directly or by organizing and/or advising
locals) would be a valuable service.

Ways to meet other unicyclists, convenient ways to buy, rent, try unicycles or
parts might be valuable to many people.

You mentioned doing a market survey to determine the needs you might be able to
address. I think that’s a good idea, and I wish you the best of luck. I sugest
not trying to sell the organization to regional clubs again until you know what
you are trying to sell.

You mention four things:

  1. If the IUF should exist
  2. What should the IUF’s mission be
  3. What services and benefits should the IUF provide
  4. Where should the IUF get its revenues

I believe that 1 2 and 4 all follow from 3 and that you should try to structure
the organization entirely around what it’s trying to provide. Think of it as a
for-profit company and everything will fall into place.

Seth Golub seth@cs.wustl.edu http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~seth/