<p>May was critical of rejection of John Howard's nomination as president-elect and questioned how much Alan Isaac, who replaced the former Australian prime minister, could do and suggested nothing may change until the ICC functions independently. <br />Only three countries -- England, Australia and New Zealand - supported Howard's nomination while the strong African and Asian block, including the Indian cricket board, opposed Howard’s candidature.<br /><br />The rejection of Howard was believed to stem from his strong opposition to Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe.<br /><br />"The governance structure of the board is a relic of the past," May was quoted as saying in the Age. "Board composition in the professional sporting world has moved beyond structures where members comprise the board. Such structures are fraught with conflicts of interests, cronyism and lack of specific expertise and independence. Whilst the ICC maintains its present board structure, it's most likely the ICC will continue to be held by the public as an underachiever.<br /><br />"It (ICC) will continue to make decisions that benefit the powerful at the expense of the greater good of the game. It's the No. 1 issue in the game today - its solution provides the pathway for better and more equitable decisions surrounding future playing schedules, ICC events, managing the Twenty20 format, investment in the game, allocation of resources."</p>.<p>"Alan has a sound reputation as being a fair and astute leader - he will have an opportunity to lead a period of change within the ICC - but the challenge lies in convincing the very board that he wants to change that it needs to change," May said. "No one likes relinquishing power.<br /><br />May said ICC was not transparent when it came to disclosing why Howard's nominations was rejected. "John Howard would have been an outstanding president. The line which some boards have hidden behind, his lack of cricket administration capabilities, is an insult to the stakeholders who follow the game. We deserve better. The ICC is supposed to be a transparent body but for some reason they won't disclose why Mr. Howard's nomination was rejected. <br /><br />"Players are continually told and governed by a notion of the 'spirit of the game'. It's time our administrators led by example."</p>
<p>May was critical of rejection of John Howard's nomination as president-elect and questioned how much Alan Isaac, who replaced the former Australian prime minister, could do and suggested nothing may change until the ICC functions independently. <br />Only three countries -- England, Australia and New Zealand - supported Howard's nomination while the strong African and Asian block, including the Indian cricket board, opposed Howard’s candidature.<br /><br />The rejection of Howard was believed to stem from his strong opposition to Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe.<br /><br />"The governance structure of the board is a relic of the past," May was quoted as saying in the Age. "Board composition in the professional sporting world has moved beyond structures where members comprise the board. Such structures are fraught with conflicts of interests, cronyism and lack of specific expertise and independence. Whilst the ICC maintains its present board structure, it's most likely the ICC will continue to be held by the public as an underachiever.<br /><br />"It (ICC) will continue to make decisions that benefit the powerful at the expense of the greater good of the game. It's the No. 1 issue in the game today - its solution provides the pathway for better and more equitable decisions surrounding future playing schedules, ICC events, managing the Twenty20 format, investment in the game, allocation of resources."</p>.<p>"Alan has a sound reputation as being a fair and astute leader - he will have an opportunity to lead a period of change within the ICC - but the challenge lies in convincing the very board that he wants to change that it needs to change," May said. "No one likes relinquishing power.<br /><br />May said ICC was not transparent when it came to disclosing why Howard's nominations was rejected. "John Howard would have been an outstanding president. The line which some boards have hidden behind, his lack of cricket administration capabilities, is an insult to the stakeholders who follow the game. We deserve better. The ICC is supposed to be a transparent body but for some reason they won't disclose why Mr. Howard's nomination was rejected. <br /><br />"Players are continually told and governed by a notion of the 'spirit of the game'. It's time our administrators led by example."</p>