Center for programming and digital creativity "KIBERone Banja Luka"

For me, this Dialogue would be successful if it leads to something practical, not just another set of principles. In my work with children, especially those who are often left out, I've seen that access alone doesn't mean inclusion. A child can be present in a digital space and still feel invisible. So one important outcome would be to recognize that inclusion is about how systems are designed, whether they create a sense of safety, confidence, and real participation. It would also be important to hear more from people working in less resourced environments. Many of us are already using AI in very simple ways, but with real impact. These experiences are often missing from global discussions, even though they can help make policies more realistic. Another key outcome would be stronger attention to ethics, especially when it comes to children. Not just in theory, but in how tools are actually used,making sure they don't reinforce exclusion or labels. Finally, I think success would mean that this is not a one-time conversation. There should be a way for people working directly with communities to stay involved, to share what works and what doesn't. If this Dialogue manages to stay connected to real experiences like these, then it can actually shape AI in a meaningful way.

• AI capacity-building
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight

I selected these priorities because they reflect the reality I work in every day. AI capacity-building is essential in my context. Many children I work with are not just new to AI, but to digital tools in general. If we don't actively build these skills, they are simply left out from the beginning. Human rights are also central to my work. When working with children, especially those from vulnerable backgrounds, it's not just about teaching technology. It's about protecting their dignity, making sure they feel safe, and ensuring they are not reduced to labels or limitations. The social and ethical implications of AI are something I see very clearly in practice. Small design choices can make a big difference - whether a child feels included or excluded, confident or discouraged. These things are often not visible in theory, but they are very real in everyday learning environments. Finally, open-source tools (didn't check it becuse it coludn't) are extremely important in my work. In many cases, they are the only reason we are able to use AI at all. Without them, access would be very limited, especially in less resourced environments. For us, open-source is not just a preference, but a necessity. These priorities are not abstract for me, they come directly from working with children and trying to create environments where they can truly participate and grow.

One issue I often feel is missing from these discussions is the difference between access and real participation. In many cases, we talk about giving people access to AI tools, but that doesn't automatically mean they feel included or able to use them with confidence. Especially with children, I see that what matters is whether they feel safe, understood, and encouraged to explore, not just whether the tool is available. Another important aspect is emotional readiness. We often focus on skills and knowledge, but not enough on confidence. Some children hesitate to engage with technology not because they can't understand it, but because they don't feel it is "for them". This is something that policy conversations rarely address, but it makes a big difference in practice. I also think there is not enough attention to how AI is introduced in early learning environments. The first experiences children have with technology can shape how they see themselves in relation to it, whether they feel capable or excluded. Finally, I would highlight the importance of context. Solutions that work in well-resourced environments are not always transferable. In my experience, working with limited resources requires creativity and different approaches, and these perspectives should be more visible in global discussions. These are not entirely new topics, but they are often overlooked, even though they strongly influence whether AI inclusion is real or only formal.

In my context, the biggest gap is not the lack of interest in AI, but the lack of structured and inclusive ways to engage with it. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, many children still do not have equal access to digital education, especially those from vulnerable backgrounds. At the same time, AI is developing quickly, which creates a growing gap between those who are included and those who are left behind. Through my work in KIBERone and the development of the Mentora+ platform, we try to address this gap in a practical way. We work directly with children, introducing them to AI through simple, accessible tools, but also focusing on confidence, inclusion, and real participation. For us, it is not enough that a child is present, we work to ensure they feel that this space is made for them. One of the main challenges is the lack of localized resources and support systems. Many tools and educational approaches are designed for more developed environments and do not easily translate to our reality. This is where open-source tools become essential, as they allow us to adapt and experiment without high costs. At the same time, this creates an opportunity. Working in a limited-resource environment pushes us to be creative and to design more flexible, human-centered approaches. These experiences can offer valuable insights for global discussions, especially when it comes to making AI more inclusive and accessible in practice.

I think the AI Dialogue can play an important role if it becomes a real bridge between different perspectives, not just a space for formal statements. In my experience, there is often a gap between those who create policies and those who work directly with people, especially children. Many valuable insights come from practice, but they don't always reach global discussions. The Dialogue can help change that by creating space for voices from different contexts, including smaller or less resourced environments. It can also support international cooperation by making these experiences visible and transferable. We don't all work in the same conditions, but we can still learn from each other. For example, simple, low-cost approaches developed in one country can sometimes be more adaptable and inclusive than complex systems. Another important role is to keep the focus on people, not only on technology. AI governance is often discussed at a very high level, but its impact is very concrete, especially in education and with children. Keeping that connection between policy and real-life impact is essential. Finally, the Dialogue could help build ongoing collaboration, not just one-time exchanges. If it creates a way for practitioners, educators, and communities to stay involved, it can lead to more grounded and effective governance. For me, its value will depend on whether it stays open, practical, and connected to real experiences.

I think the AI Dialogue should build on initiatives that are already connecting technology, education, and inclusion in a practical way. For example, work within the Council of Europe on Digital Citizenship Education provides a strong foundation for thinking about AI not only as a technical issue, but as something that affects rights, participation, and everyday life. In my experience, these frameworks are very useful, but they could be more closely connected to global AI discussions. There are also important global platforms like the WSIS Forum, where different stakeholders already exchange ideas and present real projects. These spaces bring together practitioners, policymakers, and organizations, but the connection to concrete governance processes is not always strong. From a more practical perspective, many local initiatives and grassroots projects are already experimenting with AI in education, often using open-source tools and simple approaches. These efforts are rarely visible at the global level, even though they can offer valuable lessons. The added value of the AI Dialogue could be in connecting these different levels, linking global frameworks with real experiences from the field. It could help ensure that policies are informed by practice, and that smaller initiatives are not left out of the conversation. If it manages to bring these perspectives together in a continuous and meaningful way, it could make international cooperation more grounded, inclusive, and effective.

Different stakeholders can contribute to the AI Dialogue in meaningful ways, but only if the structure allows for more than formal input. From my experience working directly with children and educators, practitioners can bring very concrete insights about how AI is actually used in everyday settings, what works, what creates barriers, and what inclusion really looks like in practice. These perspectives are often missing, even though they are essential for making policies realistic. Governments and international organizations can provide direction and coordination, but they benefit when they stay closely connected to what is happening on the ground. Private sector actors can contribute innovation and technical expertise, while civil society plays an important role in keeping the focus on ethics, rights, and real impact. For the Dialogue to be effective, its format should support this exchange in a more continuous and interactive way. Instead of one-time consultations, it would be valuable to create smaller working groups or thematic tracks where different stakeholders can engage over time, share examples, and reflect on real challenges. It would also help to include more practical cases, not just high-level discussions. Hearing how AI is being introduced in classrooms, communities, or low-resource environments can bring an important layer of understanding that is often missing. If the structure allows for this kind of ongoing, grounded exchange, the Dialogue can become more than a formal process, it can become a space where policy and practice actually meet.

In my view, some of the most underrepresented voices in AI governance discussions are those working directly with children, especially in less resourced environments. We often hear from policymakers, researchers, and large organizations, but much less from educators, community leaders, and practitioners who are actually introducing AI in everyday settings. Their experience is very practical,they see where children struggle, what builds confidence, and what unintentionally creates exclusion. Children themselves are also rarely included in a meaningful way. Decisions are made about their digital future, but without really understanding how they experience technology. Even simple ways of listening to them could bring valuable insights. Another missing perspective comes from smaller countries and communities that do not have strong institutional representation. In these contexts, people are often adapting global tools with limited resources, finding creative ways to make them work. These experiences are important, but they are not very visible at the global level. To include these voices, the process needs to be more open and flexible. It's not enough to invite written submissions. There should be formats that allow people to share real examples, short case presentations, small group discussions, or ongoing working groups. Sometimes, the most useful insights don't come from large systems, but from small, practical experiences. Creating space for those perspectives would make AI governance more grounded and more relevant.

To make the AI Dialogue truly engaging, it should move beyond traditional panels and include more interactive and practical formats. Small, thematic working groups would allow deeper discussions between different stakeholders over time, instead of one-time exchanges. These groups could focus on real challenges and share concrete examples. Short case-based sessions would also be very effective. Hearing how AI is used in real environments, classrooms, communities, or low-resource settings, brings a level of understanding that high-level discussions often miss. It would also be valuable to include voices that are usually not present, through formats like moderated discussions with educators or even young people. This can bring more grounded perspectives into the conversation. Finally, the Dialogue should not be limited to a single event. Ongoing online exchanges or follow-up sessions would help keep the conversation active and connected to real developments. Practical, interactive, and continuous formats are key to making engagement meaningful.

One example I find valuable is the work on Digital Citizenship Education within the Council of Europe. It provides a practical framework for connecting technology with human rights, responsibility, and participation, which is directly relevant for AI governance. From a practice perspective, working directly with children has shown me that simple, accessible approaches can be very effective. Using open-source tools and age-appropriate methods, AI can be introduced in a way that builds understanding, but also confidence and a sense of belonging. This is especially important in less resourced environments, where access to advanced tools is limited. Platforms that combine education with emotional support and inclusion also offer a useful model. In my own work, this means not focusing only on technical skills, but also creating an environment where children feel safe to explore, make mistakes, and participate actively. Another important approach is adapting global tools to local contexts. Many solutions are designed for well-resourced systems, but real impact often comes from adjusting them to fit different realities. These examples show that effective AI governance is not only about high-level rules, but also about how those rules translate into everyday practice - especially in education and with young people.