Prepare an operational continuity arrangement that can be activated in the event of cessation — organised transfer of the client relationship, sector guarantee fund, or mutual takeover agreement between peers#
What this is, concretely#
This commitment goes beyond the promise of export and beyond software escrow. Promising that the client will be able to retrieve their data is not enough if, on the day of cessation, they have no path to continue operating the service. Escrow delivers code, export delivers data; what remains missing is operation. This commitment consists of preparing, upstream and in documented form, a continuous operations path that can be activated in the event of provider failure or cessation.
Three alternative or cumulative mechanisms are possible: (a) an identified takeover agreement with a peer in the same sector, who undertakes by framework contract to take over the clients in case of failure — the agreement specifies the pricing terms of the takeover, the migration scope, the transition period; (b) a sector guarantee fund mutualised between publishers in the same field, which finances continued operation during a transition period (a model inspired by the guarantee funds of banking or insurance, where one actor’s failure is absorbed collectively); (c) a mutual takeover agreement between two or three competing publishers who undertake to take over each other’s clients should one of them cease activity. This commitment directly informs domain 5 of the Sovereignty Profile (continuity) and has a structuring effect on the sector itself.
Why this commitment matters#
Thesis 13 of the manifesto grounds this commitment: “Technological sovereignty is not an end in itself. It is the condition under which an organisation — a business, an administration, an individual — can continue to operate its data and conduct its operations, whatever happens: provider failure, geopolitical conflict, sanctions, hostile takeover, unilateral flip by a publisher. It is a right, not a comfort.” The phrase “continue to operate its data and conduct its operations” is central here: it does not say “be able to retrieve the data”, it says continue to operate them. The operational continuity arrangement is what makes this right effectively exercisable.
This commitment forms part of the new section “Conditions of equivalence for the proprietary publisher” of the About page. The “operational continuity” condition is the fifth and one of the most demanding: it can only be taken seriously with an identified partner or sector arrangement, which forces the publisher out of the isolation in which the proprietary model usually encloses it. It logically complements pub-005-establish-software-escrow (continuity of the software) and pub-009-standard-reversibility-clause (continuity of the data) by adding the continuity of operation. The precedent of the banking sector (Fonds de Garantie des Dépôts et de Résolution) or insurance (FGAO) shows that these collective arrangements are possible in sectors where the failure of one actor has systemic effects on its clients — sector-critical digital activity falls within that.
A concrete example#
Three French SaaS publishers of HR for mid-sized companies (ETIs), totalling around 800 clients and 250 employees, take this commitment in May 2026 with a 24-month horizon. The trajectory is progressive. After six months, a memorandum of mutual takeover agreement is signed: each of the three undertakes, in case of failure of another, to take over its clients for a transition period of twelve months, on capped pricing terms and with a documented migration format. The technical conditions are also specified: partial compatibility of data models, intervention of an approved migration provider for the gaps.
After eighteen months, the protocol is supplemented by a modest sector guarantee fund, replenished each year at 1% of the software revenue of the three publishers, managed by an independent sector association. The fund would cover, in case of failure, the takeover costs during the transition period, as well as part of the migration costs for the clients. By the 24-month horizon, the agreement is public, explicitly mentioned in client contracts and in the Sovereignty Profile of each of the three publishers. Several public-sector clients declare that this mutualisation weighed positively in consolidating their sovereign choices.
Anti-pattern to avoid#
A continuity commitment phrased in vague terms (“we undertake to offer our clients a migration path in case of cessation”), without an identified partner, without a documented arrangement, without a funding circuit, is no more than an intention. A takeover agreement signed but never tested or updated becomes inoperable as the technical scopes diverge. A guarantee fund announced but not replenished, or replenished without independent governance, does not honour the promise. Finally, an arrangement reserved for “strategic” clients instead of covering the whole client base introduces a discrimination that runs counter to the spirit of the commitment.
Success indicators#
By the 24-month horizon, you can reasonably consider this commitment fulfilled if a concrete arrangement is in place (signed takeover agreement, replenished guarantee fund, or formalised mutual agreement), if the triggering conditions and transition arrangements are publicly documented, if the arrangement is mentioned in client contracts, and if it has been the subject of at least one joint simulation test between the parties.
JSON schema category: publication. Default horizon: 24 months. Applicable to: businesses.