What does being able to point to a different URL (presumably at Red Hat, after paying for a commercial support contract) have to do with having confidence that CentOS will be around in 3 to 6 years' time? Others (e.g. Whitebox Linux and at least one other) have demonstrated that tracking RHEL is not trivial by trying to do it and then backing out. (And of course I'm not that concerned about them possibly having to move to centoslinux.org or whatever. That's not the point I'm making.)
At any rate, if this incident does not have at least *some* effect on your opinion of how the project is being run, then I have to wonder about your judgment. For example, this single point of failure should not have been allowed by policy in the first place. Are there any others waiting in the wings?
That probably comes off as more sensationalist than I would normally be. But as you're pushing the point, I'm responding.