STANDARDS CONSULTATION PROCESS
The CIP Standard is developed through a structured, transparent consultation process aligned with ISEAL best practice. Two public consultation rounds, published responses, and committee accountability at every stage.
| Document | CIP Standard v55, Part 10 |
| Subject | Standards-Setting Process |
| Status | Consultation framework adopted |
Introduction
The CIP Standard is a charity-governed framework. Its legitimacy depends on the quality of its consultation process — on whether the people and organisations affected by the standard have had a genuine opportunity to shape it.
This document sets out the six-phase consultation process through which the CIP Standard is developed, revised, and periodically reviewed. The process is designed to meet the requirements of the ISEAL Standard-Setting Code and to ensure that every stakeholder community has meaningful input at every stage.
Part 10 of the CIP Standard (v55) also contains the first-round consultation questions — fifteen structured questions across five sections, covering scope, technical specifications, certification, access, and implementation.
The six-phase consultation process
The CIP Standard follows a structured six-phase process from initial scoping through to periodic review. Each phase has defined durations, activities, and outputs. The process is designed to be predictable, transparent, and accountable.
| Phase | Title | Duration | Key activities |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pre-consultation | Months 1–6 | Scope definition, expert consultation, baseline impact assessment |
| 2 | First public consultation | Months 7–8 (60 days) | Full draft published, 15 structured questions, active outreach |
| 3 | Response analysis | Months 9–11 | All responses published, thematic analysis, committee response to every question |
| 4 | Second public consultation | Months 12–13 (60 days) | Revised draft, focused on whether revisions address first-round concerns |
| 5 | Final standard | Months 14–15 | Committee vote (two-thirds majority), simultaneous publication of standard and all consultation records |
| 6 | Periodic review | Every 3 years | Triggered earlier by significant regulatory change or new AI capabilities |
Consultation governance
The consultation process is governed by the Standards Committee of Creative Intellectual Property Charity. The Committee is structured to ensure balanced representation from the professional communities the standard serves.
Standards Committee composition
| Stakeholder community | Seats |
|---|---|
| Creators and talent | 2 |
| Agencies and publishers | 2 |
| Legal practitioners | 2 |
| Insurance underwriters | 1 |
| Platform operators | 2 |
| Independent expert members | 2 |
| Total | 11 |
Quorum
Quorum is seven members, including at least one representative from each stakeholder community. No decision may be taken without representation from creators, agencies, legal practitioners, insurance underwriters, and platform operators present.
Decision-making
The final standard is adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the Standards Committee. The vote is recorded and published alongside the final standard text and all consultation records.
Transparency obligations
- All consultation responses are published in full (anonymised on request)
- The Committee publishes a formal response to every consultation question
- Where a response recommends a change that the Committee does not adopt, the Committee must explain why
- The final standard, all consultation records, and the Committee vote are published simultaneously
First round — consultation questions
The following fifteen questions form the structured consultation for the first public consultation round. They are drawn from Part 10 of the CIP Standard (v55) and are organised into five sections covering the major dimensions of the framework.
Respondents may answer any or all questions. The Standards Committee will publish a thematic analysis of all responses and a formal committee response to every question.
Scope and coverage
Does the standard cover the right categories of intellectual property for the AI content pipeline? Are there rights categories that should be added, removed, or redefined?
Is the scope of “creative intellectual property” appropriately defined? Should the standard apply to all creative works, or should certain categories (e.g. academic research, government publications, open-source code) be treated differently?
Does the standard adequately address the jurisdictional differences in IP law? How should it handle rights that exist in some jurisdictions but not others (e.g. moral rights, database rights, publicity rights)?
Technical specifications
Is the cip.md file format technically adequate for declaring rights and consent terms? Are there fields that should be added, modified, or removed?
Does the Core Data Record (CDR) structure capture the information needed for effective rights management across the AI pipeline? What additional data fields, if any, would improve its utility?
Is the proposed integration with C2PA content credentials technically sound? Are there alternative or additional provenance standards that should be supported?
Certification requirements
Are the five certification tracks (Creator, Agency, Legal, Underwriter, Platform) the right categories? Should any tracks be added, merged, or split?
Are the three certification levels (Foundation, Practitioner, Chartered/Certified) appropriately calibrated? Do the requirements at each level reflect genuine competence thresholds?
Is the proposed CPD (Continuing Professional Development) requirement proportionate? Are the recertification periods (annual for legal and underwriter tracks, triennial for others) appropriate?
Access and inclusion
Does the standard do enough to ensure that individual creators — particularly those without organisational support — can access and benefit from the framework? What barriers exist and how should they be addressed?
Are the proposed fee structures (including concessionary and fee-waiver provisions) adequate to prevent the standard from becoming a barrier to participation for smaller creators and organisations?
Does the standard adequately address the needs of creators and organisations in the Global South? Are there specific provisions that should be added to ensure geographic equity?
Implementation and transition
Is the proposed transition period adequate for organisations to achieve compliance? Should different transition periods apply to different stakeholder groups (e.g. platforms vs. individual creators)?
Are the proposed enforcement mechanisms (revocation, suspension, compliance audits) proportionate and fair? Should the standard include a formal appeals process, and if so, what should it look like?
How should the standard handle the transition from current AI-training practices to rights-compliant practices? Should there be a retrospective element, or should the standard apply only to future conduct?
ISEAL alignment summary
The ISEAL Alliance sets the global benchmark for credible sustainability and social standards. The CIP consultation process is designed to meet the requirements of the ISEAL Standard-Setting Code. The table below maps the ISEAL requirements to the corresponding CIP provisions.
| ISEAL requirement | CIP provision | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Defined standard-setting process | Six-phase process with defined durations, outputs, and governance at each stage | Met |
| Balanced stakeholder participation | Standards Committee with seats for all five stakeholder communities plus independent experts | Met |
| Two public consultation rounds | Phase 2 (first consultation, 60 days) and Phase 4 (second consultation, 60 days) | Met |
| Minimum 60-day consultation period | Both consultation rounds run for a minimum of 60 days, extendable by Committee decision | Met |
| Published responses to comments | All responses published; committee publishes formal response to every question | Met |
| Decision-making procedures documented | Two-thirds majority vote, recorded and published with final standard | Met |
| Complaints and appeals mechanism | Formal complaints procedure via charity governance; appeals to Trustee Board | Met |
| Regular review and revision cycle | Full review every 3 years, with early trigger provisions for regulatory or technological change | Met |
| Accessibility and non-discrimination | Concessionary fees, fee-waiver provisions, translation programme, Global South provisions | In progress |
| Impact assessment | Baseline impact assessment in Phase 1; outcome assessment following each review cycle | In progress |
| ISEAL Community membership | Formal application planned following completion of first full consultation cycle | Planned |
Periodic review
The CIP Standard is subject to a full review every three years. A review may be triggered earlier by:
- Significant regulatory change in a major jurisdiction (e.g. EU AI Act implementing measures, UK statutory instruments under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025)
- New AI capabilities that materially change the rights exposure landscape (e.g. real-time voice cloning, fully autonomous content generation)
- A formal request by three or more Standards Committee members
- A direction from the Trustee Board of Creative Intellectual Property Charity
Each periodic review follows the same six-phase process, including two public consultation rounds and a two-thirds majority committee vote.
- The CIP Standard — full standard text (v2.1)
- Governance — trustees, Standards Committee, constitution
- Certification Tracks — 5 professional certification paths at 3 levels
- Support CIP — funding breakdown including consultation infrastructure
HAVE YOUR SAY.
The consultation process exists because standards without stakeholder input are standards without legitimacy. Your response shapes the framework.