UCI (Indonesia)

Concrete agenda or efforts to move beyond principles to practices, i.e. binding or semi-binding interoperability standards between national frameworks (to avoid "shopping" for weakest regulatory jurisdiction), shared auditing mechanism -- not just self-reporting by AI developers, and -- mostly relevant due today's geopolitics: how can the dialogue remain meaningful when major AI powers opt out?

• Interoperability of governance approaches
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
• Open-source software, open data and open AI models

These three (interop, transparency, and open access) can be the umbrella toward meaningful result of this dialogue. They enable all parties to step-up their AI involvement at the global level.

Not that I can think of at the moment.

With no clear and interoperable framework, countries tend to pick and choose either the "safest" approach in term of AI governance and regulation or just playing with normative statements that are not grounded in practice (that's why bringing practice to principles is important). It is also usually not preventing the risk of AI power being abused by the state againts the society.

Initiating two type of working group groups that aim to transform principles to practices: (1) regional or similar demographic group -- from different continents; and (2) group with mixed members -- that can be covered also by this bigger dialogue group

Partnership with local or regional groups, make them as local/regional champion and give them global boost, i.e. in Southeast Asia, the Dialogue can work with group such as Tech for Good Initiative (sponsored by Grab, the regional unicorn) or university-based research group such as Center for Digital Society at Universitas Gadjah Mada in Indonesia. Again it aims to bridge the principles to practice and providing some sort of local/regional "arm" for this Dialogue.

Give the discussion points in advance, asked the stakeholders to provide written input, conduct some sort of online polling to identify/prioritize which inputs are the most relevant or interesting, and use the live event to discuss this selected or prioritized topic.

The voice of indigineous or under represented communities. They can be included by having the local/regional arm or sub-dialogue that I mentioned before.

Same with my answer for point #15: Give the discussion points in advance, asked the stakeholders to provide written input, conduct some sort of online polling to identify/prioritize which inputs are the most relevant or interesting, and use the live event to discuss this selected or prioritized topic.

AI Verify Toolkit and Project Moonshoot in Singapore, AI Playbook for Small States (partnership between Singapore and Rwanda), AI Sandboxing platform (many countries)