35
possible or desirable for CSPs to delete this data; similarly, clients may not
wish inferences about them or their activities inferred from this data.
As a final comment on termination, while CSPs do not have a duty to
make off-boarding easy or free, and indeed there is a palpable difference
between the quality of on-boarding tools and support and off-boarding
ones, they are not the only cause of delays. Customisation of cloud services, for example Salesforce.com, can result in both vendor lock-in and
data portability issues. As such, cloud clients need to be aware of how
integrated and dependent they are becoming on their CSP over time and
the implications on termination.
2.4.8
Dispute Settlement
The overwhelming majority of CSPs include provisions for dispute resolution in their TOS however specific dispute resolution clauses may feature
in other documents e.g. privacy policies (Martic 2017). CSPs may stipulate courts or arbitration to settle disputes and stipulate a choice of law in
one or more jurisdictions (for example, see Ryanair dac v SC Vola.ro srl)
or specific arbitration rules e.g. AAA or ICC rules. Research suggests that
the preference is for courts as the exclusive adjudicative method (Martic
2017). As discussed previously, the determination of choice of law can
favour one side or the other. For example, EU consumers can avail of the
EU Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive and the EU-wide
Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform.
2.5 Future oF cLoud contracts
Current literature and thinking on contract law and cloud computing is
based on relatively static conceptualisations of both cloud computing and
contracts. The majority of legal research focuses on a conceptualisation of
cloud computing from over a decade ago, primarily focussing on IaaS and
SaaS services, and to a much lesser extent, Platform as a Service (PaaS).
Recent work has suggested that the cloud is increasingly more abstracted,
heterogeneous, composable, and automated (Lynn et al. 2020). First, the
emergence of containerisation and serverless computing (including
Function-as-a-Service) are enabling portability and a separation of concerns between CSPs and independent software vendors and clients (Lynn
et al. 2020). These paradigms reduce vendor lock-in and create clear lines
of demarcations between responsibilities and technology ownership in
2 DEAR CLOUD, I THINK WE HAVE TRUST ISSUES: CLOUD COMPUTING…
possible or desirable for CSPs to delete this data; similarly, clients may not
wish inferences about them or their activities inferred from this data.
As a final comment on termination, while CSPs do not have a duty to
make off-boarding easy or free, and indeed there is a palpable difference
between the quality of on-boarding tools and support and off-boarding
ones, they are not the only cause of delays. Customisation of cloud services, for example Salesforce.com, can result in both vendor lock-in and
data portability issues. As such, cloud clients need to be aware of how
integrated and dependent they are becoming on their CSP over time and
the implications on termination.
2.4.8
Dispute Settlement
The overwhelming majority of CSPs include provisions for dispute resolution in their TOS however specific dispute resolution clauses may feature
in other documents e.g. privacy policies (Martic 2017). CSPs may stipulate courts or arbitration to settle disputes and stipulate a choice of law in
one or more jurisdictions (for example, see Ryanair dac v SC Vola.ro srl)
or specific arbitration rules e.g. AAA or ICC rules. Research suggests that
the preference is for courts as the exclusive adjudicative method (Martic
2017). As discussed previously, the determination of choice of law can
favour one side or the other. For example, EU consumers can avail of the
EU Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive and the EU-wide
Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform.
2.5 Future oF cLoud contracts
Current literature and thinking on contract law and cloud computing is
based on relatively static conceptualisations of both cloud computing and
contracts. The majority of legal research focuses on a conceptualisation of
cloud computing from over a decade ago, primarily focussing on IaaS and
SaaS services, and to a much lesser extent, Platform as a Service (PaaS).
Recent work has suggested that the cloud is increasingly more abstracted,
heterogeneous, composable, and automated (Lynn et al. 2020). First, the
emergence of containerisation and serverless computing (including
Function-as-a-Service) are enabling portability and a separation of concerns between CSPs and independent software vendors and clients (Lynn
et al. 2020). These paradigms reduce vendor lock-in and create clear lines
of demarcations between responsibilities and technology ownership in
2 DEAR CLOUD, I THINK WE HAVE TRUST ISSUES: CLOUD COMPUTING…