I know you have asserted this in multiple threads, and I understand your reasoning, but the fact that they have yet to legally ensured the OGL remains irrevocable forever suggests it isn't as clear cut as that. Not revising OGL 1.0 in this way strongly suggests they are holding an option in reserve to try to nuke it again.
I do not believe that this in possible. My understanding (not a lawyer) based on the legal discussion, here and elsewhere, is that the claim to de-authorise the OGL was not legally tenable. That is, a publisher that continued to publish under the OGL would ultimately prove successful in court, if they could afford to carry the case until it came to trial.
I do not think it was an absolute certainty, as the actual legal arguments, the quality of the lawyers and the judge all effect the outcome but that the case was a strong one.
Everyone believed that the OGL was rock solid before this bout of shenanigans. Again from reading what the lawyers say, I do not believe that there is any formulation of words that would be rock solid enough to be free from a threat mounted by the combination of: a novel legal approach, and a mountain of cash being thrown around as a threat.
This is more a commercial (and may be an equality o justice ) issue.
The release of the SRD under the CC-BY 4.0 licence is as rock solid as you can get. That would get a lot more than gamers mad if someone tried to break that licence.
As for Third Party Publishers:
I would leave the existing OGL stuff where it is, it is safe enough for now.
I would get my base game rules out from under the OGL and move to the CC-BY-4.0 or the new ORC licence once the independent foundation is up and running.