Governance & Ethics

Institutional structures and ethical frameworks that ensure profit never overrides safety.

The Three-Pillar Governance Model

The Foundation (IISF)

IP Steward & Standards Authority

Responsibilities

Owns and stewards the Grandin, Heumann, and Crenshaw modules

Defines intersectional safety standards

Maintains Charter of Fundamental Intersectional Safety Rights

Oversees research fellowship program

Approves commercial licensing agreements

Authority

Retains veto power on all commercial applications. Can revoke licenses.

The Licensee (Vector for Good)

Commercial Implementer

Responsibilities

Commercializes technology for enterprise duty-of-care

Routes risk-aware decisions into real-world operations

Implements compliance with GDPR, ISO 31030, EU AI Act

Develops sensory safety, kinetic equity features

Reports to IISF on all deployments

Maintains ethical guardrails in product design

Authority

Operates under exclusive license with performance obligations and ethical requirements

The Lock (Kill Switch Authority)

Ethical Enforcement

Responsibilities

Monitor for surveillance use cases

Detect weaponization attempts

Prevent non-consensual tracking deployments

Audit data handling and algorithmic decisions

Enforce contractual safeguards

Revoke license if terms violated

Authority

Unilateral power to terminate license and remove systems from operation

Six Core Ethical Frameworks

🛡️

Intersectional Safety First

The foundational principle: commercial viability is subordinate to intersectional safety standards. Profit cannot override safety.

No system feature overrides safety requirements

Profit never supersedes human safety

Marginalized communities prioritized in design

Lived experience integrated in decision-making

🔍

Algorithmic Transparency

Systems must be comprehensible to affected communities. Users have right to understand why a decision was made.

All risk algorithms auditable by third parties

Decision pathways explainable in plain language

No black-box systems deployed

Algorithmic bias testing mandatory before release

🗽

Digital Sovereignty

Every person retains sovereignty over their data. Participation in intersectional safety systems is voluntary and revocable.

Right to opt-out of tracking without service loss

Data portability guaranteed

Users can request permanent deletion

No behavioral profiling without explicit consent

Consent Architecture

Consent is active, reversible, and context-specific. Default is non-participation.

Explicit, informed, withdrawable at any time

No pre-checked boxes or dark patterns

Quarterly consent renewal for sensitive data

Easy opt-out mechanisms visible at all times

No Weapons, No Surveillance

Hard red lines. Violations trigger immediate license revocation regardless of business impact.

Zero tolerance for weaponization pathways

No integration with law enforcement targeting systems

No deployment in immigration enforcement

No use in non-consensual identification systems

🤝

Community Accountability

Affected communities have structural power in governance, not just input solicitation.

LGBTQ+ safety organizations on advisory board

Disability rights groups review before deployment

Neurodivergent voices in design decisions

Annual community audit and feedback process

Three Design Principles: Grandin, Heumann, Crenshaw

Sensory Safety

Systems must accommodate autistic, deaf, blind, and neurodivergent users. Sensory impact audited before deployment.

Implementation Examples

Acoustic environment mapping
Visual accessibility standards
Haptic feedback options

Kinetic Equity

Mobility status never determines access to safety. Wheelchair users, ambulatory, and non-binary mobility respected.

Implementation Examples

Wheelchair-accessible routing
Rest period accommodations
Alternative input methods

Algorithmic Invisibility

Systems must prevent forced visibility. Marginalized users can participate without being tracked or identified.

Implementation Examples

Ephemeral data storage
Anonymization guarantees
Traceless participation options

The Ethical Decision Framework

Every feature, deployment, and integration runs through this framework before release.

Q:Would this feature benefit from knowing a user's marginalized identity?

A:If yes, request explicit informed consent. If no, design around identity obfuscation.

Q:Could this feature enable surveillance or weaponization?

A:If possible, redesign to eliminate that pathway. If unavoidable, do not deploy.

Q:Does this feature require forced visibility?

A:If yes, design opt-out mechanism. If not possible, reject feature entirely.

Q:Are disabled/neurodivergent/LGBTQ+ users at disadvantage with this design?

A:If yes, redesign or build compensatory features. Never ship with known equity gaps.

Board Composition & Accountability

Executive Leadership

Levi Hankins

Founder & Chair

Reserved Board Seats

Disability Advocacy Seat

Nomination Pending

Data Ethics Seat

Nomination Pending

LGBTQ+ Safety Seat

Nomination Pending

Accountability Mechanism: Board members serve 3-year terms with community review. Any member can be removed by 2/3 vote of affected community organizations.