Indeed it did. I have to say that I'm a bit ambivalent about this action, because I distrust the AMiA's goals and tactics, but it does tend to force Rowan Williams's hand in a number of important respects.
Consider: if Williams says or does nothing, then it indicates his acquiescence on the idea of alternative oversight from other provinces, and the structure of the Communion is thereby forever changed.
If Williams does say or do something against the AMiA, then in so doing he has assumed a "leadership role" in the Communion -- which raises the obvious question of why his "leadership" is not being extended to the obviously schismatic actions of Canada and the ECUSA. For Williams to condemn the AMiA, while not condemning Ingham's (and the ECUSA's) schismatic actions that led up to the AMiA's actions, spells the end of the Communion.
Williams's only way out of this particular mess is to make an unambiguous statement, and to take unambiguous action, against the Ingham and the Canadian Church, and against the AMiA. Which implies, obviously, that he must do the same with respect to the ECUSA.
And if he does that, then it places ECUSA and Canada in the position of being kicked out of the Communion unless and until they repent and change.
In addition to Williams, it puts additional pressure on the Eames commission, which clearly must deal with the issue of discipline within the Communion -- both for the AMiA, and again with provinces like Canada or the ECUSA.