That's how I read it as well, in part because the wording is that "The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions". If this is a limitation on the grant of license, I don't see how else to read it (inside the US). I'm not sure what courts would do. Would they would look to the intent of the CC lawyers, or would they look to the intent of the copyright owner? Could the license be interpreted differently in different court cases (obviously yes, but it could it *legitimately* be interpreted differently)?
Again, IANAL, but as far as I know, intent is only relevant when the wording is ambiguous. I don't think it is in this case, it's perfectly clear to me what it means, and that just isn't what the authors intended it to mean.