Digital Transformation for Health Lab

A successful first Global Dialogue on AI Governance would deliver concrete shifts in both principles and practice. It should first recognise the current AI landscape and its disruption to economic factors. AI has served as a powerful catalyst for accelerating digital infrastructure development worldwide, transforming it from a support function into a primary engine of economic growth. Expediting growth into IT commodities e.g Data Centres, Fiber Connectivity, Computational Resources, Investments. Similarly, the dialogue should recognise its disruption to human factors, seeking to secure broad endorsement of a shared, rights‑based vision for AI that explicitly recognizes AI as a structural determinant of health and well‑being, with particular attention to children and young people as distinct stakeholders rather than generic "users" or future workers. This would include explicit commitments to protect youth from AI‑driven harms (such as exploitative data practices, mental health risks and biased decision‑making), while also enabling their development, participation and flourishing in digital societies.

• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Open-source software, open data and open AI models
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight

Our priorities align most strongly with three of the four thematic areas, with a cross-cutting focus on youth involvement in digital health, rights and participation in AI governance.

Yes, two critical cross-cutting issues are not fully captured: Digital Determinants of Health (DDoH) and Digital Citizenship for Health in youth populations.

In Southeast Asia, particularly Singapore, AI governance gaps in the aforementioned areas are not as pronounced due to the country's proactive approach in shaping governance as a regional leader. However, this remains a large issue in the rest of the region, with the lack of awareness on AI safety and consultations being a norm. However, integrating a health lens to this area remains abstract, with Digital Determinants of Health (DDoH) and Digital Citizenship for Health remaining nascent priorities.

The Dialogue can serve as a trusted, inclusive convening platform to forge actionable consensus on AI governance, bridging divides between state and non-state actors, tech firms, civil society and youth with inclusive representation. By exchanging best practices and aligning on shared principles (e.g., transparency, equity), it counters fragmentation, building on UNGA Resolution 79/325's mandate for annual sessions. It should prioritise capacity‑building for developing regions like SEA and LAC, facilitating knowledge transfer on youth‑centred tools (e.g., impact assessments). The Dialogue can drive norm‑setting—e.g., standards for DDoH and digital citizenship—while catalysing voluntary commitments, such as youth advisory mechanisms, to operationalise rights in AI. Ultimately, it fosters multilateral trust, preventing a race to the bottom and enabling cooperative enforcement via peer review.

The Dialogue should connect with existing UN mechanisms e.g Global Digital Compact, ITU AI for Good, WHO AI for Health guidance (youth/digital health focus). It can also work with other multilateral organs on a regional level e.g ASEAN Guide on AI Governance/Ethics (2024), Digital Health Blueprint. Moving on to sectoral actors, the dialogue can adopt existing frameworks Y5 Framework/DTH‑Lab (youth AI governance), HealthAI Global Governance Forum.

This AI Dialogue can be structured into different levels primarily focused on age demographic and themes e.g Students/Young Professionals/Mid-Senior Level. Students may focus on foresight, Young Professionals focusing on proactive governance and Mid-Senior Level focusing on the entire ecosystem. As different stakeholders have different strengths and focuses e.g AI Safety, Regulatory Harmonisation, Climate, this can be a good way to provide more opportunities for dialogue across different levels.

Indigenous communities, Youth, Refugees/Migrants. In order to included effectively, capacity building initiatives have to be inculcated, allowing for productive exchange. A baseline level of digital and civic literacy would allow for these groups to engage long-term, allowing for any consultative process to be representative. I suggest leveraging scholarships and online platforms to collect data before the AI Dialogue.

Considering the nature of AI, an innovative but potentially disruptive form of engagement is to allow every stakeholder the option of submitting a knowledge base and context which can be used to power an AI Agent who will engage among other agents. Another engagement format to use would be to leverage social media, livestreaming key moments to a younger-centric platforms. An innovative engagement format would be to ban AI usage in certain formats of dialogue, relying solely on prepared and digital data.

1. ASEAN Guide on AI Governance & Ethics (2024). This provides regional principles for ethical AI, including human rights and transparency; Extended Guide on Generative AI offers risk templates adaptable for youth health. 2. EU AI Act. A Risk-based framework mandating transparency, human oversight, and impact assessments-model for high-risk health AI. Practices: - Y5 Futures Framework (DTH-Lab): A framwork which assesses AI governance against youth health/well-being, direct rights inclusion, participation, and institutional design. - AI-Verify (Singapore): A consortium for testing explainability and bias; promotes accountability via benchmarks. Platforms/approaches: - Global South case studies: Bangladesh perinatal depression app (co-designed, bias-audited); Ethiopia polio surveillance with community AI literacy. - NIST/ISO/IEC 42001 frameworks: Means to operationalise fairness via audits, documentation, and RACI matrices for cross-sector use.