The ICC's Finance and Commercial Affairs committee's position paper, which outlined the three countries' plans, also recommended scrapping the Future Tours Programme, bringing in promotion-relegation for the bottom-placed test-playing nation - but with the Big Three immune from relegation - and remodelling the way finances are distributed.
It proposes each of those three countries have permanent places on an executive committee, with one other person of their choice.
Snedden will carry NZC's wish list to Dubai, with questions they want answers to ahead of any vote. As New Zealand has next to no authority around the board table, they're unlikely to get satisfaction.
South Africa has spoken out against the plan; Pakistan - part, you would think, of a solid sub-continental block - has expressed negative views. The West Indies has stated it has "taken a position in the best interests of West Indies cricket"; the international players' association, Fica, has condemned the idea.
It may be that countries next week seek more time to study the plan and defer a vote until the next ICC quarterly meeting. India's actions yesterday, at a meeting for its own body to authorise the moves of their leading officials, smack of the child not getting his way, taking his toys and stamping off into the distance.
In one respect, the BCCI might be justified in arguing they are due some relief. They bring in more than 70 per cent of revenue for the ICC. They have long maintained that they should get some extra financial compensation for that rather than a more even distribution alongside the other test nations. They want 21 per cent of the pie.
As an idea of the sort of money washing around the Indian game, it was reported this week that the BCCI made a US$70.7 million ($85 million) profit on last year's Indian Premier League, more than double that of 2012.
Nobody ever said the FTP, designed by New Zealand's Sir John Anderson and the late Chris Doig, was perfect, but it was intended to present an even field for all test-playing nations. Now the Big Three want to have the right to simply bail out of any bilateral arrangement which doesn't suit, ie. doesn't make a buck.
Arms are being twisted; essentially, support us or see you around. The spin-offs could be disastrous.
What stung most at the January 9 meeting at which the position paper was unveiled, was that no other nation knew what was coming.
ICC president, New Zealander Alan Isaac, and chief executive Dave Richardson knew about it. Where does that leave their ability to work in an atmosphere of trust with the other nations?
And even if there are merits to the so-called position paper, and even if the ICC has been useless in many respects as a governing body for years, you cannot cede authority to a small group of your own members.
CA chairman Wally Edwards says it is about "improving global cricket leadership".
Improving the quality of the ICC operation would be a more popular, effective move. Not that the Big Three would agree.
