This is exactly right, Jorge. 
In many ways the AoC was a great move, especially for the US government, because it got us out of the rut we were stuck in regarding U.S. control. 

But no one should be fooled or confused into thinking that the AoC solves ICANN's basic accountability problems. It doesn't. 

If there is anything to celebrate, it is that we are in a better position to understand and respond to these accountability problems now that ICANN's supervision is solely under the U.S. Commerce Dept. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jorge Amodio
> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 10:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] OReilly Media on "ICANN without restraints:
> the difficulties of coordinating stakeholders"
> 
> Very good.
> 
> While I'm happy that the JPA is over, I'm leaning in your same
> direction that there
> is not much yet to celebrate, and despite the sensationalistic news
> titles everywhere
> the "independence thing" is very relative.
> 
> Put it on a MoU, JPA, AoC, White, Green or whatever color of paper you
> like,
> if we keep insisting in an institutional architecture for the
> organization that has the
> same group of people involved in policy development, policy implementation,
> compliance verification, GAO role, and on top acts as the tax collection
> agency,
> IMHO we'll keep going in the wrong direction.
> 
> For example, just to mention one, I'd have all paid supporting staff for
> policy
> development completely separated from the executive side of ICANN and
> reporting to the chair of the GNSO.
> 
> I'm not an attorney so correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I know being
> ICANN
> a non-profit CA corp with no institutional "members", legally besides to
> the
> Attorney General, ICANN still is accountable to ... nobody ?
> 
> BTW, the AoC is a good step forward, but what the heck people are
> celebrating ?
> 
> Cheers
> Jorge