TheCreators2030 (CSO Org) & GLI (Company) | Additionally Serve As UN ECOSOC CSO Rep for ECOSOC NGO

A successful Global Dialogue on AI Governance would move beyond principles into practical governance through stakeholder engagement systems that countries and institutions can use. AI governance should not be shaped in silos. It should connect governments, private sector actors, civil society, educators, entrepreneurs, artists, youth, all generations, technical experts, and UN-related parties around shared responsibility, resource mobilization, public trust, and responsible innovation. My name is Gail Davis-Carter. I am Co-Founder and Arts & Culture Envoy of TheCreators2030, a civil society organization; Co-Founder of GLI, a private company; and I serve as a UN ECOSOC Civil Society Representative for an accredited UN ECOSOC NGO. My work focuses on stakeholder engagement systems that help countries align resource mobilization, public-private collaboration, creative economy development, youth leadership, and responsible innovation across sectors. I am also an artist, poet, storyteller, author, producer, and songwriter. That lived experience informs my view that AI governance must protect human creativity, professional identity, likeness, compensation, and financial wellbeing while enabling responsible use of AI across society. Artists and creative professionals provide an early glimpse into the broader social and economic disruption AI may create across professions. Their work is used daily across media, education, business, design, culture, technology, wellbeing, and public life, yet they are not always treated as professional-status contributors like lawyers, engineers, doctors, AI professionals, and other recognized professions. A successful Dialogue would produce clear pathways for consent, attribution, licensing, compensation, human oversight, transparency, and accountability, while also strengthening innovation, markets, culture, and human dignity.

• Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
• AI capacity-building
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight

Safe, secure, and trustworthy AI is essential because governments, companies, institutions, and citizens need confidence that AI systems will not misuse data, misrepresent identity, deepen inequality, or remove accountability from human decision-makers. AI capacity-building is urgent because people need more than tool training. They need the ability to question outputs, verify information, understand bias, protect privacy, respect intellectual property, and apply AI with judgment across real sectors and country contexts. The social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic, and technical implications of AI are especially important because AI affects work, education, markets, culture, creativity, public communication, authorship, and professional identity. Artists and creative professionals provide an early example of this. Their likeness, voice, image, writing, music, performance, style, authorship, and cultural knowledge must be protected through consent, attribution, licensing, compensation, and accountability. Transparency, accountability, and human oversight are necessary because AI should support human intelligence, creativity, professional value, financial wellbeing, and institutional responsibility, not replace them. These priorities are strongest when approached through stakeholder engagement systems that include governments, private sector actors, UN-related parties, educators, entrepreneurs, artists, youth, civil society, technical experts, all generations, and country-level stakeholders.

es. One major cross-cutting issue is how AI affects professional identity, likeness, authorship, jobs, compensation, financial wellbeing, and market value across society. Artists and creative professionals provide one of the clearest early examples. Their work, voice, image, writing, music, performance, style, cultural knowledge, and storytelling are already being used, imitated, or generated through AI systems. If this happens without consent, attribution, licensing, compensation, or accountability, it creates ethical harm, economic harm, and market instability. This is not only an arts issue. It gives us an early view into how AI may affect other professions as it expands into education, law, medicine, engineering, business, government, media, and public life. A person's likeness, professional identity, authorship, and body of work should not become an unprotected resource for AI systems. AI governance should therefore include clear standards for consent, attribution, licensing, compensation, authorship protection, professional protection, human oversight, and accountability. These standards can protect creative professionals while also informing how all citizens and professions are protected as AI changes work, income, identity, and economic security. Another emerging issue is cultural extraction. AI systems can reproduce cultural expressions, languages, designs, music, oral traditions, and national or community knowledge without context, permission, or benefit-sharing. Responsible and ethical AI should create collaboration, paid opportunity, innovation, education, and professional protection rather than replacing or extracting from the people whose work and identity give AI systems value.

AI governance gaps are creating both opportunity and risk across arts, culture, education, youth, private sector engagement, public communication, government, country-level development, and international cooperation. The opportunity is significant. AI can help governments, companies, educators, entrepreneurs, civil society, artists, and young people strengthen communication, analyze information, train teams, improve productivity, support storytelling, improve learning, and develop solutions across countries and sectors. The risk is that many institutions and industries are adopting AI faster than they understand its consequences. Gaps around accuracy, bias, privacy, intellectual property, authorship, consent, cultural context, workforce impact, procurement, and accountability create risk for governments, companies, organizations, citizens, and professions. For artists, authors, writers, producers, songwriters, educators, and creative professionals, the gap is immediate. Generative AI can use or imitate a person's voice, image, writing, music, performance, likeness, or style without clear permission or payment. This threatens income, authorship, identity, professional standing, and financial wellbeing. This matters beyond the arts because creative and educational work is used daily across advertising, education, media, design, film, music, technology, wellbeing, public communication, and culture. If the professionals behind that value are not protected and paid, markets lose trust and creative industries lose long-term sustainability. Each country will experience AI differently depending on its infrastructure, laws, workforce, culture, economy, and development priorities. Governance must therefore be global in principle but adaptable to national and sector realities. The challenge is whether AI governance will protect people, strengthen institutions, respect culture, support responsible markets, and expand economic opportunity.

The AI Dialogue can help move international cooperation from fragmented conversations into practical alignment between governments, the private sector, UN-related actors, academia, technical experts, civil society, artists, educators, youth, entrepreneurs, industries, and country-level stakeholders. International cooperation is necessary because AI does not stop at national borders. AI systems are developed in one country, trained on data, educational materials, cultural content, and creative works from many countries, used globally, and can affect economies, culture, education, employment, public trust, creative industries, and democratic life. The Dialogue should help countries move from consultation to applied action. One practical approach is creating structured pathways where stakeholders identify priorities, receive responsible AI capacity-building, and align around solutions that strengthen economic opportunity, public trust, wellbeing, and country-level benefit. The Dialogue can help establish shared expectations on safety, transparency, consent, intellectual property, authorship, licensing, compensation, human oversight, cultural protection, capacity-building, responsible and ethical AI, and accountability. It should also recognize that each country has its own AI context, including economic priorities, workforce needs, cultural assets, legal frameworks, education systems, and development goals. A strong role for the Dialogue would be to turn global discussion into practical guidance, stakeholder engagement systems, shared learning, implementation pathways, and measurable commitments.

The AI Dialogue should build upon existing work across the United Nations system, national AI strategies, regional digital cooperation efforts, education, culture, human rights, private sector standards, workforce development, creative economy initiatives, responsible technology frameworks, and cross-sector implementation models. It should also connect AI governance to the sectors that shape how people live, learn, work, create, communicate, build trust, and participate in markets. This includes arts, culture, sports, and wellbeing, not as side sectors, but as areas directly connected to human dignity, public trust, economic participation, and sustainable development. The Dialogue should formally recognize the Arts, Culture, Sports and Wellbeing Working Group as a Major Group. This is distinct from similarly named arts and culture efforts because it integrates arts, culture, sports, wellbeing, youth, private sector engagement, government, civil society, education, and country-level stakeholders into one cross-sector framework. Its role would be to work in partnership with the United Nations and relevant stakeholders to support responsible and ethical AI standards that protect creative labor, likeness, data, intellectual property, authorship, compensation, financial wellbeing, and professional value. The added value of the Dialogue would be coordination, legitimacy, practical guidance, and measurable follow-through. It can help ensure AI governance respects each country's context while supporting responsible markets, creative economy development, public trust, and implementation partnerships.

Different stakeholders should contribute from their areas of authority, responsibility, expertise, lived experience, and market experience. Governments can address policy, regulation, public services, national priorities, and rights protection. The private sector and industry can contribute innovation, investment, procurement practices, market standards, risk management, workforce planning, ROI, and accountability. UN-related actors, academia, and technical experts can contribute research, coordination, evidence, and institutional experience. Artists, creative professionals, authors, educators, youth, entrepreneurs, and all generations can show how AI is affecting culture, education, work, learning, identity, trust, financial wellbeing, and economic participation. Their input should not be secondary. Artists and creative professionals are already showing how AI can affect many professions through issues of likeness, authorship, ownership, compensation, and professional value. The Dialogue should include high-level plenaries, structured working sessions, solution labs, sector roundtables, regional consultations, and case-based discussions. Specific sessions should address AI and creative rights, AI and education, AI and authorship, AI capacity-building, AI and youth, AI and institutional trust, AI and the private sector, AI procurement, professional identity, compensation, and ROI. Each session should produce clear outputs: risks, opportunities, recommendations, responsible actors, capacity needs, timelines, and follow-up steps. The structure should recognize that AI governance is not only technical. It is a governance, market, cultural, educational, professional, and international development issue that must be adaptable to each country's context.

Artists, creative professionals, authors, writers, producers, songwriters, educators, youth, all generations, cultural institutions, sports and wellbeing actors, small and mid-sized enterprises, industry practitioners, and country-level stakeholders remain underrepresented in AI governance discussions. Governments, the private sector, academia, civil society, UN-related actors, and the technical community are all necessary. However, the balance still often favors technical, institutional, and large corporate perspectives, while creative professionals and the people shaping culture, education, learning, trust, behavior, public imagination, and market demand are not always treated as governance contributors. Artists and creative professionals should be recognized as professional-status contributors to society and the economy. Their work is used daily across industries, yet their rights, compensation, likeness, voice, authorship, ownership, and financial wellbeing are not always protected with the same seriousness as other professions. Their experience is also an early signal for what AI may create across all professions: questions of identity, likeness, authorship, ownership, compensation, jobs, financial wellbeing, and professional value. Youth also need meaningful inclusion. Young people are not only future users of AI. They are current users, builders, storytellers, learners, and emerging leaders whose relationship with AI will shape future work, markets, and society. These perspectives can be included through formal seats in working sessions, paid expert participation, artist and youth advisory groups, education, authorship, and creative rights roundtables, industry roundtables, regional consultations, translated materials, structured virtual input, and country-specific engagement formats. Inclusion should influence recommendations, standards, accountability mechanisms, ROI models, and implementation pathways.

The AI Dialogue should use formats that allow participants to move from statements into shared problem-solving, practical design, and implementation planning. One effective format would be cross-sector solution labs where governments, private sector actors, UN-related parties, technical experts, educators, artists, youth, entrepreneurs, industry leaders, and country-level stakeholders work together on specific AI governance challenges. Each lab should produce recommendations, implementation partners, capacity needs, timelines, ROI considerations, and follow-up mechanisms. Another useful format would be creative rights, education, and authorship roundtables. These should address consent, attribution, licensing, compensation, likeness, voice, image, performance, authorship, cultural ownership, financial wellbeing, and market value in generative AI. Artists and creative professionals should be at the table as professionals and economic contributors because their experience offers an early governance lens for all professions. Youth and intergenerational labs would also be valuable because AI is shaping learning, work, creativity, and future economies across all ages. The Dialogue could also include responsible and ethical AI demonstrations showing how AI can support education, public communication, business, cultural protection, wellbeing, country-level problem-solving, and resource mobilization when used ethically. Country-specific sessions would also be useful because AI priorities vary by infrastructure, legal systems, workforce needs, economic priorities, education systems, culture, and development goals. The most effective formats will be structured, outcome-driven, commercially aware, culturally informed, internationally relevant, and connected to implementation after the Dialogue ends.

Effective AI governance should combine policy, education, accountability, market responsibility, cultural protection, professional standards, and practical use. One concrete approach is responsible and ethical AI training that teaches people not only how to use AI tools, but how to question outputs, identify bias, protect privacy, verify information, understand intellectual property, respect authorship, and consider the human, cultural, and economic consequences of AI use. The strongest governance practices are those that can be used beyond technical circles and applied across institutions, markets, industries, education systems, and professions. For artists, authors, educators, and creative professionals, effective governance should include clear standards for consent, attribution, licensing, compensation, authorship protection, likeness protection, and professional-status recognition. AI systems should not use a person's voice, image, writing, music, performance, creative style, or cultural expression without permission and fair economic consideration. This matters beyond the arts because AI expansion will raise similar questions across many professions: identity, ownership, jobs, compensation, financial wellbeing, professional value, and public trust. Another strong practice is transparency. People should know when content, analysis, communications, images, audio, video, or decisions have been generated or significantly assisted by AI. Multi-stakeholder review is also essential. Governments, companies, technical experts, artists, educators, youth, industry practitioners, and other stakeholders should assess AI systems from different perspectives before wide deployment. AI governance should prevent harm, build trust, protect professional value, strengthen institutions, support responsible markets, respect each country's AI context, and expand economic opportunity.