I don't wish to remove the need for money from the game - but at the end of the day all the money that cricket has generated - has not improved cricket one iota IMO.
All it has done is to put all the power into the hands of a few.
What has the ICC done for the West Indies?, I would think it was urgent that cricket is promoted in those islands - who's people seem to be leaning towards the better managed and better behaved sports in the USA.
You say it all "perceived" unfair treatment" - as far as I am concerned an umpires decission is final, why do captains have to resort to taking players of the park - why can't they just report an umpire that most countries think is poor or biased to the ICC, who could then look at the evidence without the pressure of cricket boards - threats and on the spot media attention.

These umpires that have been in the firing line have been neutral, but have failed to control players, or the ones that stuck to their guns were banished by the ICC.
Then cricket will carry on as it is with umpires being undermined, and the result will be a split in cricket.

I doubt any side would have took on a national umpire like they did with Hair and Buckner, they had nothing to lose because they Knew the ICC would cave in:Which they did.
Looking back at the last few weeks: NO! - how could it have been?.

Simple because an Aussie umpire like Hair was percieved to be biased in favour of England, had Hair been Englsih -then they would have had to trust him being fair.
Also this is my main point - national umpires have to be seen to be being fair, bias is not an option.
Strong enough to make decissions that might not favour any particular board, instead of appeasment which I believe happens.
Simply because some countries are richer than others, and some boards would be able to afford to pay their umpires more - a subsidy may be needed to attract the right people for the job, nobody will work for peanuts.

There may be single votes now, but really the boards with the most power will ultimatly get their way - put the purse strings into the hands of the individual boards and the power shifts away from just the major powers.
Also it makes sence for a reformed ICC, or a new body to have a constitution.
Hence the need to subsidise some nations boards to ensure that their cricket also develops, also all nations would keep the bulk of TV rights, so why should some nations suffer.
There will still be a governing body - and that simply would not be allowed to happen, if nothing is done cricket will split in any case - so worth the risk.
I can't say this would not happen - but any new body would have rules in place, I agree that enforcing them would need goodwill.
There could be a system were a country has an extra vote if needed for deadlocks, they would be changed every year - and maybe voted for to ensure such a delegate would have the trust off all.
Fair enough - but I still say cricket should be free to all. I am sure not just England has the system of cricket for some.
Yes that's true. look how many posters were on last week, and now vanished - are they real cricket supporters?.
Some degree of Controversy is fine, but it's getting worse - we don't want it to overshadow the cricket every year, and that could well happen: The precident has been set.
Yes - I know it's a joke, but Rachael would argue that slagging off Bob Taylor was just NOT cricket
This is the easiest question of all for me to answer, the world changing does not mean cricket has to change (for the worse) - I would hope we could go back to the standards of 20-30 years ago, and I would jhope that an 20-30 years time the standard of cricket and it's supporters will be the same.
Cricket HAS changed - and look at the state it's in.
Well I agree and said:-
I would settle for a certain level of bureaucracy, rather than a "huge" bureaucracy" we seem to have.
In short I would like to see a smaller ICC with less power, with more power to the cricketing nations.
The ICC has IMO let us down, and sold it's employees short.
I would just like to see the ICC reformed - mine are just ideas, I am sure that others would have better ideas, but IMO coninuing as we are is not an option.

As a by the way - I don't like one day cricket that much, but I don't want it abolished even if it is coaching test players into making poor selected shots, noy to mention overloading players with to much cricket.
The ICC should have seen test standards slipping, and address the situation - they could call for seperate teams and managers for example, but no they think of the cash it generates - stuff the players and falling standards of test cricket.

__________________
Ern