Libyan Technology Foundation

A successful first Global Dialogue on AI Governance should produce practical, inclusive, and action-oriented outcomes rather than broad political statements only. First, it should establish a trusted global platform where governments, civil society, academia, the private sector, technical community, and youth can participate meaningfully, especially stakeholders from developing countries and underrepresented regions. Second, it should identify a limited number of shared priorities for international AI governance, including safety, transparency, accountability, data governance, human rights, inclusion, capacity building, and the responsible use of AI in public services and development. Third, it should create clear pathways for cooperation between global, regional, and national initiatives, avoiding duplication and helping countries align AI governance efforts with existing frameworks, including the Sustainable Development Goals, WSIS outcomes, and human rights principles. Fourth, the Dialogue should result in concrete capacity-building mechanisms for countries that lack sufficient legal, technical, institutional, and regulatory capabilities to govern AI effectively. This includes support for policy development, risk assessment, public-sector readiness, digital infrastructure, and AI literacy. Fifth, success would require a transparent follow-up process. Inputs should not remain symbolic; they should be summarized, published, and translated into a clear roadmap with responsibilities, timelines, and opportunities for continued stakeholder engagement before the 2027 Dialogue. Finally, the Dialogue should help build trust by recognizing that AI governance must balance innovation with safeguards. It should promote responsible AI adoption while protecting societies from misuse, discrimination, exclusion, cybersecurity risks, and concentration of power. For Libya and similar countries, success would mean that the Dialogue gives developing nations a real voice, supports national AI governance readiness, and connects local institutions to global knowledge, partnerships, and standards.

AI capacity-building;Safe, secure and trustworthy AI;Protection and promotion of human rights;Transparency, accountability, and human oversight

These priorities best match LTF's mandate as a civil society and technology policy organization working on digital transformation, public awareness, ICT governance, cybersecurity, and inclusive participation. They also reflect Libya's current needs: building institutional capacity, improving digital readiness, ensuring responsible AI adoption, protecting rights, and giving developing countries a stronger role in global AI governance.

Yes. One cross-cutting issue is national AI governance readiness in developing countries. Many countries do not yet have the legal, institutional, technical, data, cybersecurity, and public-sector capacities required to engage with AI safely and effectively. Another emerging issue is the risk of dependency on external AI platforms, infrastructure, datasets, and cloud services, which may affect digital sovereignty and local innovation. The Dialogue should also address multilingual and local-context AI, especially for underrepresented languages and societies, so that AI systems reflect diverse realities rather than only dominant global markets.

In Libya and the wider region, AI governance gaps are affecting the ability of public institutions, civil society, academia, and the private sector to adopt AI in a safe, inclusive, and productive manner. The most significant challenge is institutional readiness. Many entities still lack clear AI policies, risk assessment procedures, data governance frameworks, technical standards, and internal accountability mechanisms. This creates uncertainty around the responsible use of AI in public services, education, media, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. A second challenge is the digital divide. Unequal access to reliable connectivity, digital infrastructure, cloud services, data resources, and advanced technical skills limits the ability of many communities and institutions to benefit from AI. Without targeted support, AI may widen existing social, economic, and regional inequalities. A third challenge is trust and safety. Weak governance can increase risks related to misinformation, privacy violations, algorithmic bias, cyber threats, misuse of personal data, and the deployment of AI systems without transparency or public oversight. At the same time, AI presents important opportunities for Libya and similar contexts. It can support better public service delivery, improve administrative efficiency, strengthen anti-corruption tools, enhance cybersecurity capabilities, improve access to education and training, and create new opportunities for youth, startups, and local technology ecosystems. For civil society and technology policy organizations, the opportunity is to help bridge the gap between global AI governance discussions and national implementation. This includes raising awareness, supporting multi-stakeholder dialogue, contributing to policy development, promoting responsible AI literacy, and ensuring that developing countries are not only consumers of AI technologies but active participants in shaping their governance.

The AI Dialogue can serve as a neutral global platform for aligning priorities, sharing good practices, and connecting national, regional, and international AI governance efforts. It can help reduce fragmentation by encouraging common principles on safety, transparency, accountability, human rights, inclusion, and responsible innovation. It can also support developing countries through capacity-building, technical assistance, knowledge exchange, and access to policy tools. Most importantly, the Dialogue can ensure that AI governance is not shaped only by technologically advanced countries, but through inclusive participation by governments, civil society, academia, the private sector, and technical communities.

The AI Dialogue should connect with existing UN and international mechanisms such as WSIS, the Internet Governance Forum, UNESCO's Recommendation on AI Ethics, ITU initiatives, the Global Digital Compact, regional AI strategies, and national multi-stakeholder processes. It should also build links with civil society, academic, technical community, and private sector initiatives working on AI safety, digital inclusion, data governance, and capacity-building. Its added value would be to reduce fragmentation, create a common space for coordination, amplify developing-country perspectives, and translate global principles into practical cooperation, implementation support, and follow-up mechanisms.

Different stakeholders should contribute through defined roles: governments by sharing policy priorities and regulatory needs; civil society by raising rights, inclusion, and accountability concerns; academia by providing evidence and research; the private sector by sharing technical expertise and responsible deployment practices; and the technical community by addressing standards, safety, cybersecurity, and interoperability. The Dialogue should use a multi-stakeholder format with open consultations, regional preparatory sessions, thematic working groups, and clear outcome documents. It should include hybrid participation, interpretation, youth engagement, developing-country representation, and a transparent follow-up mechanism linking recommendations to practical implementation and capacity-building.

Voices from developing countries, fragile and conflict-affected contexts, civil society, youth, local technical communities, academia, women, persons with disabilities, and speakers of underrepresented languages remain insufficiently represented in AI governance discussions. Inclusion requires accessible hybrid participation, regional consultations, interpretation, targeted outreach, travel support, open calls for inputs, and structured roles for non-governmental stakeholders. The Dialogue should also create safe channels for local communities to share practical concerns about AI impacts, including digital exclusion, data protection, misinformation, public-sector readiness, and dependency on external technologies.

Innovative formats should combine policy dialogue with practical problem-solving. The AI Dialogue could include regional policy labs, multi-stakeholder roundtables, youth and civil society assemblies, scenario-based AI risk exercises, live case clinics, and thematic working groups focused on implementation. It should also use digital consultation platforms where stakeholders can submit priorities, comment on draft outcomes, and track follow-up. Short technical briefings, matchmaking sessions, and peer-learning exchanges would help connect countries and organizations with relevant expertise, tools, and partnerships beyond the formal meeting sessions.

The Libyan Technology Foundation promotes practical AI governance through multi-stakeholder dialogue, policy review, public awareness, and capacity-building. Relevant LTF approaches include the Informatics Governance Forum as a national platform for digital governance discussions; contributions to Libya's National AI Strategy 2025-2030 and the National AI Charter; awareness activities under National IT Day; and policy work on digital platform governance, cybersecurity, and institutional digital transformation. These practices help translate global principles into local action by connecting government, civil society, academia, technical experts, and the private sector around responsible AI adoption, inclusion, trust, accountability, and national readiness.