I've been ruminating on the topic of contracts for cloud based services for some time. I had started reading AWS and Google terms of service to see what they had to offer when Alistair Croll, Principal at Bitcurrent, pointed me in the direction of some research that was done in the UK (see below). This is a first pass on what's been banging around in my head for a little while and there is more than likely going to be a second pass at some point in the near future to expand on/update/correct what I write here today.
It is true that consumers and vendors of cloud based services need to clearly distinguish between "reasonable expectations" by, as Darrell Plummer of Gartner says, using a common language, the contract. However, it is clear that service level agreements which are universal in basic IT service contracts and that are taken for granted generally do not apply to cloud based offerings; they take on new meanings given the new environments in which computing power is consumed and data is stored on demand.
Point in case: the phrase, "service level agreement," does not appear in the AWS contract. The closest it gets to an SLA is to lay out the "availability" of the service as follows:
7.1. Downtime and Service Suspensions. In addition to our rights to terminate or suspend Services to you as described in Section 3 above, you acknowledge that: (i) your access to and use of the Services may be suspended for the duration of any unanticipated or unscheduled downtime or unavailability of any portion or all of the Services for any reason, including as a result of power outages, system failures or other interruptions; and (ii) we shall also be entitled, without any liability to you, to suspend access to any portion or all of the Services at any time, on a Service-wide basis: (a) for scheduled downtime to permit us to conduct maintenance or make modifications to any Service; (b) in the event of a denial of service attack or other attack on the Service or other event that we determine, in our sole discretion, may create a risk to the applicable Service, to you or to any of our other customers if the Service were not suspended; or (c) in the event that we determine that any Service is prohibited by law or we otherwise determine that it is necessary or prudent to do so for legal or regulatory reasons (collectively, "Service Suspensions"). Without limitation to Section 11.5, we shall have no liability whatsoever for any damage, liabilities, losses (including any loss of data or profits) or any other consequences that you may incur as a result of any Service Suspension. To the extent we are able, we will endeavor to provide you email notice of any Service Suspension in accordance with the notice provisions set forth in Section 15 below and to post updates on the AWS Websites regarding resumption of Services following any such suspension, but shall have no liability for the manner in which we may do so or if we fail to do so.
7.2. Security. We strive to keep Your Content secure, but cannot guarantee that we will be successful at doing so, given the nature of the Internet. Accordingly, without limitation to Section 4.3 above and Section 11.5 below, you acknowledge that you bear sole responsibility for adequate security, protection and backup of Your Content and Applications. We strongly encourage you, where available and appropriate, to (a) use encryption technology to protect Your Content from unauthorized access, (b) routinely archive Your Content, and (c) keep your Applications or any software that you use or run with our Services current with the latest security patches or updates. We will have no liability to you for any unauthorized access or use, corruption, deletion, destruction or loss of any of Your Content or Applications.
(Source: AWS Customer Agreement accessed upon sign-up to AWS EC2 services Feb. 13, 2011.)
By contrast, Google Apps Premier terms include a service level agreement by reference (both accessed February 21, 2011) that guarantees uptime of 99.9% (which amounts to about 43 minutes of downtime, measured at the server) though it's unclear if it's consecutive or aggregate downtime. Of course, the customer is left to try to claim the service credits offered as a remedy based on user experience which is not taken into account in Google's determination of availability.
The Cloud Legal project (accessed Feb. 15, 2011), conducted by Simon Bradshaw et al. at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies at the Queen's University of London, determined that contracts vary greatly among cloud based service providers though there some overarching templates and language that are common to various discrete groups of unrelated providers. This is, as far as I know, the most extensive survey of contracts for cloud based services available.
This is a first pass on contracts and I fully expect to write more in the near future. In the meantime, if you're looking for some light bed time reading, there's always the City of LA contracts with CSC/Google (posted by InfoLawGroup, accessed January 12, 2011)...Effectively, Amazon is washing its hands of any responsibility/liability for its or anyone else's actions that might have an adverse effect on their customers. From a governance perspective, customers are left to fend for themselves and accept, rather than mitigate or avoid, risks.