The second day for the meeting of the International Cricket Council began with a brief discussion on what had happened the previous day, with Ireland stressing on the importance of accountability as a factor in dealing with corruption.
The Chair Rohit Tallapragada was extremely helpful and gave great advice to help the delegates deal with their issues with utmost precision and understanding. The discussion then moved on to the methods that could be utilized for the penalization of countries that indulged in corrupt activities. The delegates from Netherlands and Ireland firmly believed that such countries should be completely expelled from their membership and that the criteria for their full-time membership should also get reassessed. The delegate of India, for obvious reasons, did not agree with their stance and defended his country’s position by stating that the existing full-time members were extremely important because without them the ICC would not receive proper funding as smaller countries could not replace them in the same capacity.
The two blocs formed in committee quickly came together to begin a discussion on their respective working papers. The delegations of India, Australia, West Indies and Zimbabwe proposed in their paper to make a slight change in the functioning of the ICC. They believed that the ACU could not be an entity separate from the ICC because it depended greatly on the ICC for funding, and therefore they suggested a compulsory fair play awards system in order to decrease the occurrence of corruption.
At the same time the delegates from Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa, and Scotland found common ground. Some of their points were similar to that of the other bloc, however they also believed that it was important to take strict actions on the full-time members that were engaged in corrupt practices.
Most of the delegates wanted prolonged periods of informal discussions in order to work on their paper and seemed rather hesitant to indulge in formal discussions. So much so that when asked by the Chair to bring up topics for the same, there were elongated gaps before any delegate would take up the initiative. Ultimately, the Chair had to behave in a firm manner; telling the delegates that it was unjustified of them to constantly propose motions of informal discussion without having adequately participated in formal debates.
In the final session, the delegates mainly indulged in a formal as well as an informal discussion on their draft resolution. Finally, this rather hectic but enlightening day came to an end when the Chair passed a Motion for Recess five minutes early arousing within all of us extreme exhilaration.
– Deepakshi Datta