The rejection is a big blow to the Cricket Boards of Australia, New Zealand and England with no reason given officially for the rejection. Support for John Howard's appointment to the vice-presidency of the ICC fell away "significantly" in the last week with at least a couple of the boards, which eventually opposed the move, changing their stance in that time.

There were cries from down under of the apparent realigning of loyalties along lines that were thought to have mattered less in the last decade, those of race. The commentators who cannot digest Howard’s rejection are blaming the power of the Asian bloc, in particular India, which brings in 80% of the revenue for the ICC coffers. 

John Howard’s appointment was always going to be difficult given the baggage he carries based on his  immature comments on cricket from time to time. CA and the commentators in Australia were naïve in thinking that the nomination will be rubber-stamped by the ICC and failed to see the rejection. The nomination of Howard should never have gone forward in the first place as there are plenty of other worthy individuals in ANZ cricket. His nomination was a slap in the face for hundreds of volunteers and administrators with years of experience. Howard’s insistence that he will not withdraw is foolish given the process was democratic with 6 out of 10 countries voting against him, irrespective of the reasons behind the decision. This happens in any democratic institutions where you like the party but not the candidate. The same theory goes when it comes to Zimbabwe's turn, who will accept Robert Mugabe as ICC president?

The bashing of the Indian board throwing its weight is absurd and lacks judgement. The last century saw the English and Australian boards setting all rules with veto power and the others simply had to oblige and give in. The future of cricket lies in Asia and what is the problem when suddenly India throw in their weight. The fact is that the game is thriving in India and IPL has done wonders to ICC’s and other Board’s coffin by being innovative and bringing in more exposure of cricket to the world when the other Boards lacked innovation of this extent and struggling to attract dew followers.

Howard laments not being appointed because of politics within ICC. As a politician he ought to know how many political appointments, in his own reign, were made to courts and other bodies.

Cricket Australia says it needs to re-evaluate its relationship with BCCI just because Howard's nomination was blocked by several members with India being one of them. This is a immature statement coming from a professional board. A democratic process saw the rejection and CA should look forward and nominate another individual who do not carry any baggage. The re-evaluation of ties with India will be a strategic blunder as CA had admitted openly that it makes profit only once in four years when India visit down under.

There is a very easy way out. Any other candidate other than Howard would do. As simple as that.