Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.

The first Global Dialogue will be successful if it can reinforce the commitment to the common principles of the Global Digital Compact and the sustainable development goals as a starting point that will be guarding its discussions, its outcomes and planning in the future. They should be guided by a philosophy of sharing, openness, and collaboration, central to earlier internet governance processes such as the vision of WSIS, and adopt it to AI governance. As structural imbalances are already emerging, adopting a holistic and risk-based approach that considers technical, social, cultural, economic and human-rights impact needs a prominent slot on the discussion schedule. Furthermore, a successful first Global Dialogue should move from principles to implementation by securing global commitment to equitable, democratic, and multistakeholder AI governance. It should deliver an actionable roadmap that aligns global approaches, reduces fragmentation across governance processes such as WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact, and translates shared principles into concrete commitments by all stakeholders. For Wikimedia Deutschland e.V., the Global Digital Compact's commitment to digital public goods (DPGs)—including open knowledge, open data, and open-source software - are foundational building blocks for a more inclusive AI ecosystem that is multilingual and human-rights respecting. As AI systems increasingly rely on openly available, human-created knowledge, there is growing asymmetry between extraction and contribution, with large-scale reuse placing strain on public-interest digital infrastructure while reducing visibility and participation. Sustainable AI governance must therefore include norms for responsible reuse, attribution, and support for the digital commons. These norms need to include protection and support for the contributing communities. Equitable access to generative and symbolic AI technologies requires enabling communities to shape their own digital futures, develop local solutions, and participate meaningfully in governance processes.

• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Interoperability of governance approaches
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
• Open-source software, open data and open AI models

Knowledge is power and AI is transforming what knowledge is presented, how and by whom knowledge is produced, distributed, and accessed. This results in social and economic, but also ethical, cultural and linguistic implications. Use of generative AI solutions need to pass qualifiers for adequacy for example. Governance must address the risks of reinforcing existing inequities and ensure that it supports knowledge equity and everyone's ability to participate in the creation of shared knowledge. Interoperability of governance approaches because AI governance is developing across multiple processes. Without coordination, we risk fragmentation and duplication, less impact and effectiveness. Interoperability of governance approaches such as the WSIS process and the Global Digital Compact can create coherence, shared standards and mutual learning across frameworks. This is especially important for protecting digital commons and communities that are supporting them, as they are global by nature and require aligned policies across jurisdictions. Transparency, accountability, and human oversight are critical for a functioning system in general and they are critical to maintaining trustworthy and verifiable information ecosystems. The ability to monitor, debate, and revise knowledge, with community-developed policies that govern shared online spaces, is essential to safeguard information integrity and ensure that AI systems remain adequately representative of and aligned with societal values. Free and open-source software and open data are core components required to cultivate a culture of sharing and developing, that enable robust digital commons like Wikipedia or civic tech projects like Decidim or OpenStreetMap. Only when content can be legally shared, edited, and reused, online collaboration and creation can flourish. That openness must be paired with responsible governance by the affected communities. Public investment and governance are needed to protect these shared resources and the communities that maintain them. Protection and promotion of human rights are an essential part of that protection.

Power accumulation is affecting the internet as such. Existing AI solutions are entrenching existing concentrations of power not the least due to political and economic alignment. The companies that provide major global AI solutions control nearly every layer of the value chain - from subsea cables and data centers to cloud services and chip supply. The Global Dialogue on AI Governance needs to address that AI technologies result in changes that could transform access and use of the internet as we know it, as the control over that infrastructure belongs to a few companies and the states that support them. We see already that adherence to rules and regulations is not always easy for powerful players, while the reinforcement of a rules based system would benefit all, no matter if technology or policy are concerned.

From a German and European perspective, the most significant governance gap is the absence of a coherent, unifying philosophy of how a global digital infrastructure that is affecting global power structures of the future should look like. We should remember the foundations and the successes of European unification as well as earlier internet governance processes such as WSIS: they relied on a philosophy of sharing, openness and collaboration. The Global Dialogue on AI Governance needs to manifest that collaboration rather than exclusion will be beneficial for all. Consequently, the Global Dialogue on AI Governance should focus on Digital Public Goods as global examples of cooperation, openness and shared infrastructure, not only with mechanics and content, but also in self-governance. The Global Dialogue should help establish shared recognition that digital commons are infrastructure deserving attention, care, public investment and protection.

The AI Dialogue should function as a bridge. It can combine governance processes with global knowledge and experiences and come up with practical solutions and even decisions while helping prevent fragmentation. Strong coordination with existing multistakeholder platforms such as the Internet Governance Forum will not only energize these institutions through strengthened knowledge coherence and mutual learning but also add meaning through recommendations as a result of these discussion processes. The Dialogue must address the widening global AI divide and amplify civil-society voices. Without reciprocity and safeguards, AI risks undermining epistemic diversity and the sustainability of knowledge ecosystems. By connecting stakeholders and reinforcing commitments from UN initiatives, the Dialogue can help translate shared principles into coordinated global action.

The Dialogue should build on existing frameworks including the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the Global Digital Compact, the WSIS process or the Hamburg Declaration on Sustainable AI. It should also connect with the Sustainable Development Goals as we can see a much needed and necessary link to the environmental consequences of AI solutions. Similarly, the impacts on free trade, equal access to markets, and fair competition need to be addressed at relevant global initiatives and representatives of these need to be invited to the Dialogue. Existing digital governance multistakeholder processes such as the Internet Governance Forum need to be a sounding board for the Global Dialogue on AI and ideally the times and meeting locations should be merged, to ease the burden for participation. The added value of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance lies in creating coherence across initiatives and establishing a shared understanding that openness, sharing, and collaboration are central to AI Governance as well as to Internet Governance in general.

The Global Dialogue should feature multistakeholder representation at all levels. As a consequence, the Dialogue should not only include civil-society and community-led sessions through open calls for proposals, but also co-chaired and multistakeholder sessions. Organisations such as Wikimedia Deutschland can contribute expertise at the intersection of AI, knowledge commons and digital public infrastructure. Interdisciplinary participation — especially from social sciences and humanities — is essential to reflect AI's societal and cultural impacts.

Key underrepresented groups include Global Majority voices in general. More specifically representatives from the AI value chain like click-workers, assembly-line workers, minority languages, knowledge-commons communities, including Wikimedia contributors, Open-source and Digital Public Goods developers, health and environment specialists have to be included. Participation should be supported by adhering to the NETmundial+10 Sao Paulo Principles and include easy access to knowledge, timely notification of events, travel funding, multilingual formats or rules that reinforce multistakeholder representation within each track.

The Dialogue should prioritise interactive and action-oriented formats, including small multistakeholder roundtables, lightning talks with structured discussions, and working groups tasked with producing concrete commitments. Such formats are essential to move from dialogue to implementation, and to develop practical approaches to reciprocity and sustainability. In addition, we propose intentionally framing the shared experience with informal moments: an optional group meditation about 15 minutes before the first session to support focus and presence, and a closing group hike to encourage informal networking, trust-building, and lasting collaboration.

Key examples include: Global Digital Compact, WSIS+20 Resolution, UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, Internet Governance Forum (especially intersessional work such as the Policy Network on AI) Wikimedia's projects offer concrete, field-tested approaches to AI governance grounded in openness, human rights, and public-interest infrastructure. Wikipedia's community-led governance model demonstrates how transparency, human oversight, and participatory decision-making can operate effectively at global scale, while its verifiability and reliable sourcing standards help sustain a high-quality information ecosystem that is critical for AI systems relying on large-scale data. Wikimedia's use of open licensing, combined with structured access pathways such as APIs and services like Wikimedia Enterprise, illustrates how openness can be paired with responsible and sustainable reuse models, including attribution and contribution back. More broadly, Wikimedia projects function as knowledge infrastructure and digital public goods, underscoring the need to support shared resources that underpin trustworthy and inclusive AI. These approaches align with and complement broader multistakeholder efforts including participation at convenings like the Internet Governance Forum and the Wikimedia Foundation's membership in the Freedom Online Coalition and the Digital Public Goods Alliance, both of which promote human rights-based, transparent, and accountable digital governance frameworks. Together, these initiatives demonstrate pathways toward a transparent, equitable and sustainable AI ecosystem grounded in the protection of digital commons.