Governance
Proposed governance of the Standard
Academic is in preparation. This is a draft governance proposal, not evidence of an operating advisory board or completed reviews. Membership and final policies have not been confirmed.
The advisory board
The proposed IIAIT Academic Advisory Board would review every material change to the Standard before it takes effect: new or removed criteria, weight changes, gate designations, and conformance thresholds. The board would advise, with recommendations and any departures from them published alongside the decision.
Board membership has not been confirmed. The seats below describe proposed expertise; they are not profiles of appointed people. Suggestions can be sent through the contact form.
Assessment design
Proposed seatA scholar or practitioner of higher-education assessment, responsible for reviewing Domain B criteria and scoring anchors.
AI in education research
Proposed seatAn active researcher on AI's role in teaching and learning, responsible for keeping criteria aligned with evidence rather than fashion.
Academic integrity
Proposed seatAn academic-integrity officer or ombudsperson, responsible for the enforcement-realism and due-process provisions (B.5, F.3).
Institutional leadership
Proposed seatA serving dean or vice-dean, responsible for keeping the Standard implementable inside real university governance.
Discipline rotation
Proposed seatA rotating seat held by a professor from a different discipline each term, so no field's assumptions quietly become everyone's rules.
Proposed terms are two years, renewable once. Confirmed membership and affiliations would be published here.
Conflict-of-interest policy
- Under the proposal, board members would be unpaid for standard-setting work and would disclose all affiliations, to be published alongside their names.
- A board member whose own course, department, or institution is under review would be recused from any related deliberation.
- The proposed certification model uses mechanical applications of the published conformance model (IIAIT-S1 §4.4); neither the board nor IIAIT staff can override a gate failure, in either direction.
- The planned Academic service would charge certification fees. We consider this a conflict worth naming: the strongest structural safeguard is that the criteria, thresholds, and every certificate's version binding are public, so leniency would be visible.
Revocation policy
A certificate may be revoked before its expiry on any of the following grounds:
- Misrepresentation: the syllabus in use materially differs from the certified document, or the certificate is presented as governmental accreditation or a quality guarantee it is not.
- Payment reversal: refund or chargeback of the certification fee.
- Misuse of the mark: use of the IIAIT badge on non-certified courses or materials.
Under the proposed policy, a revoked certificate would show its status, ground and date on its verification page; the holder would be notified and could appeal.
Complaints and appeals
Anyone — a certificate holder, a student, an institution — may dispute a certification outcome or a revocation. Write to iiait@iiait.org. The proposed process targets acknowledgement within five working days and a reasoned decision within thirty. These timelines are not yet an operating service commitment. Proposed appeals would use the Standard version attached to the certificate.