WiseHorizon Consulting

A successful first Global Dialogue on AI Governance must move beyond high-level discussions to deliver concrete, actionable outputs and establish robust continuity mechanisms. First, success would mean the formulation of tangible deliverables, including a global memorandum that evaluates the specific field challenges AI poses to human rights across different regions. It should also produce a formal charter of rights for "humans with AI" that establishes clear, practical principles and boundaries for technological usage, including defining strict international boundaries for the use of AI in the context of war. Second, a successful Dialogue would yield actionable capacity-building solutions, specifically the creation of an international Public-Private Partnership (PPP) framework. This framework would offer young tech talent subsidized opportunities to practically activate "AI for Good" industry use cases. Finally, success requires establishing continuity mechanisms to maintain momentum between the 2026 and 2027 editions. Instead of static reports, the Dialogue must launch a dynamic, automated repository that continuously matches identified global challenges with corresponding solutions, use cases, and relevant stakeholders. Leveraging existing platforms like neural network applications and AI for Good initiatives to foster this continuous collaboration would be a definitive marker of success.

• AI capacity-building
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Interoperability of governance approaches
• Protection and promotion of human rights

These four areas represent the most critical domains requiring urgent, actionable governance based on our positions. Regarding AI capacity-building, it is vital to bridge digital divides by establishing an international Public-Private Partnership (PPP) framework. This would provide young tech talent with subsidized opportunities to practically activate "AI for Good" use cases, while fostering critical knowledge-sharing on open-source and open-weight models among states. For the social, economic, and ethical implications of AI, ethical AI must be clearly reinforced as an independent, complementary socio-technical element rather than just a byproduct of AI assurance. This requires geographically diverse, critical-thinking brainstorming workshops to define what ethical AI means across different regional contexts. Addressing the interoperability of governance approaches is urgently needed to evaluate the real-world friction and compatibility of existing standards for this borderless technology. We must critically study the feasibility of a global, intergovernmental effort to establish automated national standards that apply successively and enforce compliance as the technology travels across jurisdictions. Finally, prioritizing the protection and promotion of human rights is essential. We urgently need to elaborate a global memorandum that evaluates the specific, field-level challenges AI poses to human rights globally and regionally. This must be accompanied by an automated repository that provides intermediation, directly matching identified human rights challenges with existing best practices and solutions.

While the listed themes are comprehensive, there are cross-cutting and emerging issues that require explicit attention: the nuanced interaction between humans and AI, the weaponization of AI, and grassroots-level assurance integration. First, there is a distinct need to formally define the legal and practical relationship between humans and artificial intelligence systems. This goes beyond general oversight or human rights protection; it requires the creation of a specific "Charter of Rights for Humans with AI". This charter would establish clear, practical principles and definitive boundaries for how AI technological development and usage can safely coexist with human agency. Second, a major emerging issue intersecting with multiple themes-but requiring its own dedicated focus-is the application of AI in military conflicts. The Dialogue must urgently address this by defining clear international boundaries for the usage of AI in the context of war. Relying solely on general safety frameworks is insufficient for the unique existential risks posed by military AI applications. Finally, a cross-cutting operational issue is the integration of assurance mechanisms directly into the developer ecosystem. We must launch powerful awareness campaigns targeting tech communities in global tech hubs to promote the usage of open-source AI assurance tools. By embedding these tools at the grassroots level, we ensure that AI governance best practices naturally spread and are inherently integrated during the actual development phase of AI systems, crossing over themes of open-source software, capacity-building, and secure AI.

First, the lack of an independent, complementary socio-technical framework for ethical AI means implementations often lack geographical diversity and cultural representativeness. Second, the borderless nature of AI technology creates severe regulatory friction when it encounters fragmented governance approaches, complicating international interoperability. Third, there is a critical gap in mapping the specific field challenges AI poses to human rights across different regions. Without a formal charter of rights for 'humans with AI' setting practical principles—especially defining the international boundaries of AI usage in the context of war—fundamental human rights remain exceptionally vulnerable. Finally, ongoing capacity gaps prevent young tech talent from meaningfully participating in the AI governance ecosystem and developing according to related principles and good practices. Despite these gaps, strategic actions can transform these vulnerabilities into strengths. We have a distinct opportunity to bridge digital divides by establishing an international Public-Private Partnership (PPP) framework that provides subsidized opportunities for young tech talent to practically activate "AI for Good" industry use cases. Additionally, we can leverage interstate knowledge-sharing on open-source and open-weight models to accelerate capacity building. Furthermore, the push for governance compatibility presents an opportunity to evaluate a global intergovernmental effort for automated national standards that apply successively and enforce compliance as AI technology travels across jurisdictions. To protect fundamental freedoms, we can capitalize on automated intermediation tools to build a repository that directly matches regional human rights challenges with existing technological solutions. Finally, by launching powerful awareness campaigns in global tech hubs, we can promote the grassroots integration of open-source AI assurance tools, embedding governance best practices directly into the development phase

The AI Dialogue must act as a concrete catalyst to connect ongoing efforts, identify practical lessons, and promote greater coherence, interoperability, and mutual understanding across fragmented global processes. Its primary role in advancing international cooperation is to transition from abstract policy discussions to actionable, intergovernmental frameworks. First, the Dialogue should spearhead a global intergovernmental effort to evaluate and establish automated national standards that apply successively and enforce compliance as this borderless technology travels across jurisdictions. Furthermore, it must facilitate critical interstate knowledge sharing on open-source and open-weight models to bridge capacity gaps. The Dialogue also has a vital role in establishing a unified framework for fundamental human protections. It should initiate the elaboration of a global memorandum to evaluate the specific field challenges AI poses to human rights globally and regionally. Crucially, it must draft a formal charter of rights for "humans with AI" that sets clear, practical principles and definitively establishes international boundaries for the usage of AI, particularly in the context of war. By fostering these actionable initiatives, the Dialogue will provide a credible, inclusive United Nations platform for continued, substantive global cooperation.

The AI Dialogue should strategically build upon existing United Nations and multi-stakeholder mechanisms, particularly leveraging the momentum of the "AI for Good" initiatives and existing technological tools like neural network applications. The distinct added value of the Dialogue lies in its ability to transform these existing mechanisms into a continuous, dynamic platform for action. Instead of producing static reports, the Dialogue can add immense value by creating an automated repository that directly matches identified global challenges—such as regional human rights vulnerabilities—with corresponding technological solutions, best practices, and relevant stakeholders. Additionally, the Dialogue can bridge critical capacity divides by establishing an international Public-Private Partnership (PPP) framework built on top of existing industry mechanisms. This framework would uniquely provide young tech talent with subsidized opportunities to practically activate "AI for Good" industry use cases. Finally, the Dialogue can bring distinct added value to the developer ecosystem by launching powerful awareness campaigns in global tech hubs. By promoting the usage of open-source AI assurance tools, the Dialogue ensures that governance best practices are fundamentally integrated at the grassroots level directly when AI is being developed.

Stakeholders must contribute by moving beyond passive participation to actively bringing practical field challenges, existing use cases, and actionable solutions to the table. Industry and the technical community, for instance, should contribute by sharing knowledge on open-source and open-weight models, and operational implementations of guardrails. Regarding the format and structure, while the proposed two-day schedule provides a solid foundation, we strongly recommend transforming the breakout thematic discussions into critical-thinking brainstorming workshops rather than standard panel formats. These workshops must be structured to ensure geographical diversity and representativeness, offering a dedicated forum for countries and enterprises to share exactly what ethical AI looks like from their distinct points of view. Furthermore, the structure must be activated to deliver concrete outputs for the Co-Chairs' summary. Stakeholders should be placed in interactive formats designed to evaluate the real-world friction of existing standards, critically analyzing whether automated national standards can apply successively as technology travels across borders. By prioritizing working sessions over traditional speeches, stakeholders can directly contribute to actionable outcomes, such as outlining a charter of rights for "humans with AI".

Currently, young tech talent, grassroots technical communities in emerging tech hubs, and geographically diverse voices from developing regions are severely underrepresented in global AI governance discussions. Ethical AI is frequently defined from a centralized perspective, which often marginalizes the distinct socio-technical, cultural, and regional realities of different nations. To include geographically diverse perspectives, the AI Dialogue must guarantee representativeness in its sessions. This can be achieved through critical-thinking brainstorming workshops that empower countries and local enterprises to define the independent socio-technical elements of ethical AI from their own regional viewpoints. To capture the specific, localized human rights vulnerabilities caused by AI, these voices must be included in the elaboration of a global memorandum that evaluates field challenges region by region. To include young tech talent and bridge capacity gaps, the Dialogue should create a framework for international Public-Private Partnership (PPP) cooperation. This would provide emerging talent with subsidized opportunities to practically activate "AI for Good" industry use cases. Finally, to include grassroots developers, the UN should launch powerful campaigns directed at tech hubs globally to promote the usage of open-source AI assurance tools, ensuring that those actively building the technology are directly engaged in operationalizing governance.

To foster truly meaningful and dynamic engagement, the AI Dialogue must move past standard conferencing formats and static reports. The most effective innovative engagement format is the implementation of continuous, automated intermediation tools. Specifically, the Dialogue should leverage existing technologies—such as neural network applications and established "AI for Good" initiatives—to create a platform for dynamic interaction. This platform would function as an active, automated repository that continuously matches identified global issues (such as specific human rights challenges) with corresponding existing solutions, industry use cases, and relevant stakeholders. During the event itself, engagement can be elevated by replacing traditional panels with critical-thinking brainstorming workshops. These action-oriented workshops would allow stakeholders to evaluate the operational implementation of guardrails at scale—perhaps through reviewing systems tested in contained environments—and to critically analyze the real-world friction of governance interoperability . By shifting the format from passive listening to active problem-solving and automated matchmaking, the Dialogue will foster tangible collaboration, directly connecting those experiencing field challenges with those holding the technological solutions.

NIST RMF, UNESCO, UC-AI