The useful thing about the ECUSA structure is that Pres. Bp. Griswold is going to lose his bully pulpit at the next General Convention. At GC 2006, his successor will be elected.
The other interesting thing that's going to happen at GC 2006 is that in one fashion or another, if what's predicted above actually happens, there will be a debate over whether or not the ECUSA intends to remain in the Anglican Communion. It could possibly be an overt vote, or it could simply be a series of votes on whether or not they are going to comply with the various demands presented above. And it will likely greatly affect the candidacies and votes for Bp. Griswold's successor.
And one more thing. It's entirely possible, and perhaps even likely, that before 2008 another Diocese will elect another openly homosexual Bishop in a non-chaste relationship and propose him or her for confirmation to the rest of the ECUSA. It might happen at GC 2006, but the odds are that it will simply go out to the Standing Committees of the other ECUSA Dioceses. They will then vote it up or down without the opportunity to discuss it as a group as they did at GC 2003. I wonder what effect the proposals of this report will have on that process?
I think you're spot on w/ your analysis
at the same time, this could just be a delaying tactic that allows the heat generated by Robinson's elevation to die down enough so there is a lack of emphasis on this issue come next GC
You wrote " I wonder what effect the proposals of this report will have on that process?"
short answer: nil.
slightly longer answer: The heretics control approximately 2/3 (or a little more) of all the ecusa dioceses. ecusa will not repent under any circumstances, and I expect frank the heretic's replacement to hold to the same policies he does.