The Cloud Europe Rents

Hosting a jurisdiction's data is not the same as governing the infrastructure it sits on. A reading of the gap, and of what the migration debate keeps getting wrong.

Placeholder body copy, to be replaced with the real text. The opening paragraph carries the claim: European public bodies do not lack cloud capacity, they lack a governing relationship to it. The distinction is contractual before it is technical.1

Second paragraph placeholder. Procurement frameworks were written to buy capacity, not to hold infrastructure. They ask about uptime, price and residency; they rarely ask who may change the architecture, or who is obliged to keep running it once it is unfashionable.

Residency is not sovereignty

Placeholder. A region in Frankfurt satisfies residency and settles nothing about jurisdiction, key custody, or the power to compel. The section works through three contracts as evidence.

“Pull-quote placeholder: the question is not where the data sleeps, but who may be told to wake it.”

The migration ledger

Placeholder. An interactive table of contract terms across eleven institutions sits below; the CSV is in the dossier.

embedded artefact — procurement table
Fig. 1 — placeholder for the live table or map. Drop the real embed here.

What an alternative would have to do

Placeholder closing section, ending on the five governance questions: fund, design, build, operate, maintain. The maintenance answer is the one no European cloud proposal has yet given in writing.2


  1. Footnote placeholder. Source, year, page.
  2. Footnote placeholder. Source, year, page.

Next in the stack: the cost of leaving.

An open call sits in this layer for a full migration cost model. See the Cloud layer or the whole stack.