Education, Technology, Innovation and Investment Asso

A successful first global dialogue on AI governance should produce concrete outcomes that bridge principles and practices. Those shall include: 1-A shared roadmap with clearly timed commitments on a string of priorities such as governance frameworks, risk and mechanisms for inclusive participation. 2-Launches of tangible action in term of capacity building such as voluntary fund for AI readiness, open repository of regulatory and pilot projects of AI. 3-Alignment on the priorities area that reflects the cross cutting nature of AI ensure that debate are on safety, ethics and follow up processes are coherent. 4-A commitment to sustainability via establishing a regular multi stakeholder forum with clear linkages to existing UN processes. To conclude, success should be measured by participation leave with action.

AI capacity-building;

AI capacity building is the foundation priority that enables meaningful participation in global AI governance. Without equitable access to technical expertise, infrastructure and policy skills, developing countries and underrepresented communities risk being relegated to rule takers rather than co shapers of norms. Capacity building ensures that all nations can assess AI risks, harness opportunities and implement governances framework fit to their contexts.

Two emerging issue merit dedicated attention: 1-Environmental sustainability AI namely The energy and water consumption of large scale AI model. 2-AI in military and conflict contexts such as AI enable surveillance, autonomous weapons systems and the use of AI in warfare raise profound risks that cut across safety, human rights and governance interoperability.

The challenge lie in the uneven distribution of resources in developing while developed rapidly investing in AI research, computing infrastructure, technical talents and policy frameworks to assess AI risks or harnessing benefits.

The AI Dialogue can serve as a central, inclusive platform under UN auspices to bridge fragmented governance efforts. Its unique value lies in convening governments, civil society, technical communities, and the private sector—particularly from the Global South—to move beyond high-level principles toward coordinated action. By prioritizing capacity-building as a cross-cutting enabler, the Dialogue can translate political commitments into tangible support for countries lacking resources to engage. It can also establish mechanisms for sustained cooperation: a voluntary fund for AI readiness, interoperable standards frameworks, and regular multistakeholder consultations. Critically, the Dialogue can link AI governance to broader UN processes (e.g., Summit of the Future, Global Digital Compact) to ensure coherence. Success will be measured by its ability to produce a shared roadmap with clear milestones, foster trust among diverse actors, and create durable institutions that prevent fragmentation while respecting national contexts.

The Dialogue should build on initiatives such as the OECD AI Principles, Global Partnership on AI (GPAI), UNESCO Recommendation on AI Ethics, ITU AI for Good, the UN Secretary-General's AI Advisory Body, and regional frameworks like the African Union's AI strategy or EU AI Act. It should also leverage existing capacity-building networks like AI4D (Artificial Intelligence for Development) and UN agency programs. The added value of the AI Dialogue lies in its universal UN mandate, enabling it to connect these efforts into a cohesive global architecture. It can bridge the "North-South" divide by ensuring developing countries are not just consulted but co-lead initiatives. It offers a platform to harmonize standards, share regulatory experiences, and launch joint capacity-building projects with dedicated funding. Moreover, it can provide a regular, high-level political forum to review progress, address emerging risks, and maintain momentum—complementing existing technical or regional bodies without duplicating them. This anchoring in the UN system gives the Dialogue unique convening power and legitimacy to advance inclusive, actionable international cooperation.

Different stakeholders bring distinct assets. Governments can commit to concrete capacity-building pledges, share regulatory experiences, and align national priorities with emerging global frameworks. Private sector can contribute technical expertise, open-source tools, computing resources for capacity-building, and transparency about deployment risks. Civil society ensures accountability, amplifies affected communities, and monitors human rights implications. Academia and technical communities provide evidence-based analysis, foresight, and independent evaluations. Multilateral organizations offer existing networks, data, and implementation capacity. For format and structure, the Dialogue should combine: · A high-level plenary to secure political commitment and set direction. · Thematic tracks aligned with selected priorities (e.g., capacity-building, safety, human rights) to enable deep dives. · Regional or constituency caucuses to foster inclusive preparation and ensure diverse inputs. · Interactive roundtables with balanced multistakeholder representation, not just panel discussions. · A preparatory process with open consultations, written inputs, and inclusive nomination of participants to avoid last-minute tokenism. · Outputs should be action-oriented: a concise declaration with concrete deliverables, a roadmap with milestones, and a follow-up mechanism to track progress.

Underrepresented voices include: · Global South policymakers and practitioners, especially from least developed countries, small island developing states, and conflict-affected regions. · Indigenous peoples, whose knowledge systems, data sovereignty, and cultural rights are often overlooked. · Workers and labor unions directly affected by AI-driven automation and workplace surveillance. · Persons with disabilities, who face both opportunities and risks from AI but are rarely centered in governance design. · Women and gender minorities, who experience distinct harms from algorithmic bias and lack of representation in technical spaces. · Informal sector workers, rural communities, and migrants whose realities are seldom reflected in policy discussions. Inclusion strategies: · Dedicated funding for travel, interpretation, and participation support. · Regional preparatory meetings to develop shared positions and reduce representation gaps. · Partnerships with grassroots organizations, labor unions, and community-based networks to channel perspectives. · Accessible formats (plain language, sign language interpretation, remote participation) and flexible scheduling across time zones. · Structured mechanisms such as advisory councils or constituency seats in governance bodies, ensuring meaningful influence rather than passive consultation.

To move beyond traditional panel discussions, the AI Dialogue could adopt: · Interactive policy labs where participants co-design solutions in facilitated small groups, using real-world scenarios to test governance approaches. · World café or unconference formats that allow self-organized sessions, enabling emergent issues and cross-sector connections. · Serious games and simulations (e.g., crisis response exercises) to build shared understanding of AI risks and decision-making trade-offs. · Digital engagement platforms for asynchronous input, idea ranking, and collaborative drafting, especially to include those unable to attend in person. · Storytelling sessions featuring lived experiences from affected communities, grounding technical debates in human impact. · "Lightning talks" followed by fishbowl discussions to mix expert insights with open audience participation. · Joint project sprints where stakeholders commit to launching concrete initiatives (e.g., capacity-building pilots) during the Dialogue, with progress check-ins built into the agenda. These formats prioritize participation, creativity, and tangible outcomes over passive listening, fostering ownership and sustained collaboration beyond the event.

A concrete example of Cambodia's digital governance innovation is the Verify.gov.kh platform, a national document verification system that combats counterfeit documents. This platform has expanded its cooperation to regional partners including the Philippines, Lao PDR, and Timor-Leste, demonstrating how digital solutions developed in Cambodia can scale across borders.