On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:16 AM, PeterK <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It remains axiomatic that contracts for cloud computing services are
> generally implemented on the provider’s terms. Even projecting forward the
> current rate of evolution, it is hard to see that core principle changing.
> However, contract terms are increasingly negotiable to some extent;
> although the degree of negotiability pales in comparison with the
> contracting model in traditional services-based outsourcing.
>
> In our experience there continues to be a (resigned) acceptance from most
> customers of the providers’ terms – i.e., the terms are what they are, and
> there’s a general recognition that that is the place to start. After all,
> if a customer organization expects customization of services and  a
> genuine negotiation of service terms, then maybe the cloud is not the right
> place to be considering as a solution for those specific services.
>


Ahhhhh... a subject near and dear to my heart, contracting for services in
the ubiquitous cloud.  Sadly, I cannot see the article as I can't access
bit.ly links, but much has been written on this in the past and the
'landscape' hasn't changed (well, the risk hasn't been reduced) much over
the past few years.

Here are a couple of links to items from 2012 and 2013 that I think provide
some excellent guidance on any consideration being given to "clouding" and
there are some points in both of these that and RM being asked to provide
input into the considerations can benefit from:

https://journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/stanford-technology-law-review/online/cloudcontracts.pdf

This is an exhaustive and highly detailed journal publication that cites
many of the traps and pitfalls, especially when accepting a "Click-Through"
contract:

"While click-through may enable more efficient and flexible provisioning of
information technology services, users risk exposures may be affected. As
certain German data protection regulators noted, click-throughs speed and
ease means some customers may be tempted to accept providers standard terms
online, in order to start using the desired service quickly, without
considering fully the nature or effect of those terms, or going through
their organization's standard procurement procedures (such as legal or data
protection review or security or other risk assessments) "

This other is an ACC Powerpoint that details many of the tipping points
being risks associated with a failure to ensure their is s flow-down of
YOUR requirements and contract terms from you principal provider to any
subcontractors, as well as concerns related to the use of Internationally
based subcontractors.

http://www.acc.com/chapters/gny/upload/Adler-Stern-ACC-GNY-presentation-August-2014-draft-2.pdf?&title=PowerPoint%20Presentation

While there has been much hub-bub over the past year related to the role of
"information governance" within organizations and the changing titles of
many from RIM to IG specific titles, not much has been done to ensure these
individuals can impact the terms and condition of existing or future
contracts being engaged in that place information assets at considerable
risk.

One has to wonder, do these newly minted titles also include the
responsibility for shouldering the impact of failed agreements when
information becomes compromised?

Larry

-- 
Larry
[log in to unmask]



*----Lawrence J. MedinaDanville, CARIM Professional since 1972*

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]