en.Wedoany.com Reported - The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), an industry body representing major hyperscale cloud service providers and numerous large global technology vendors, has warned that the European Commission's latest European technological sovereignty package could backfire, noting that the current controversy surrounding the definition of digital sovereignty centers on whether "sovereignty standards should reward trust rather than origin."
The European Commission unveiled the package on June 3, aiming to chart a roadmap for Europe to reduce reliance on non-EU technologies, promote the development of European homegrown alternatives, and invest in European digital infrastructure (such as AI factories). Within the package, the Cloud and AI Development Act (CAIDA) defines four assurance levels for cloud and AI sovereignty, allowing public sector bodies to choose based on risk assessment. Level one requires data processing and storage within infrastructure located in the EU; level two requires providers to demonstrate independence from third countries and maintain software supply chain transparency; level three requires providers to be owned and controlled by the EU, meeting additional criteria such as personnel nationality, with the Commission able to recognize providers from third countries; level four requires providers to have full transparency and control over their software supply chain, free from interference by third countries.
Guido Lobrano, Director General of ITI Europe, stated that while Europe's goal of promoting sovereignty to ensure the security and resilience of digital infrastructure is reasonable, the proposal's focus on geographic and nationality criteria is detrimental to achieving effective sovereignty outcomes. He added that new significant administrative requirements, such as third-party audits, would make the European market less dynamic and competitive. He also noted that CAIDA is on the right track in addressing capacity issues, and that simplifying licensing and improving conditions for data center development can help meet Europe's growing cloud and AI demands. The sovereignty framework should follow the same logic, using trusted provider standards such as governance, risk assessment, transparency, and control to deliver tangible results and a competitive ecosystem.
ITI's members include hyperscale cloud giants such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, as well as Japan's SoftBank Group. The group recently announced plans to invest 75 billion euros in AI data center infrastructure in France, claiming this move will strengthen France's AI infrastructure and support European technological sovereignty. There is currently intense debate within the industry over whether sovereignty services provided by infrastructure ultimately owned by entities outside the EU or individual member states can be considered truly sovereign.
Another industry body representing European cloud infrastructure providers, the Cloud Infrastructure Service Providers in Europe (CISPE), also welcomed the sovereignty package, stating it represents "progress for European strategic autonomy," but noted that "challenges remain." CISPE also expressed doubts about the four assurance levels set by the European Commission, arguing that with assurance levels three and above, the Commission has delivered on its promise, providing a strong definition of sovereignty partially aligned with its April framework for sovereign and resilient cloud. The text explicitly addresses political and security concerns and, if implemented properly, could help challenge the commercial dominance of existing foreign cloud and AI providers. However, the organization pointed out fundamental flaws and significant omissions in public procurement, including the absence of an obligation to evaluate European alternatives in public cloud procurement, confusion and potential misuse of sovereignty at levels one and two, corporate-level rather than service-level assessment of sovereignty, and certain provisions in the annex that threaten the entire definition of sovereignty.
This article is compiled by Wedoany. All AI citations must indicate the source as "Wedoany". If there is any infringement or other issues, please notify us promptly, and we will modify or delete it accordingly. Email: news@wedoany.com
