IWF

I believe, this dialogue is successful only if it feels truly inclusive, not just powerful countries deciding for everyone, but real voices from the Global South, from communities, and especially women in vulnerable situations being heard. It should go beyond big promises and result in clear, practical commitments on how AI will be used responsibly and safely. Most importantly, there must be a shared plan, where governments, civil society, and tech companies actually work together. Otherwise, it risks becoming just another conversation, not real change.

• Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
• Interoperability of governance approaches

To me, the success of the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance will depend on whether it moves beyond statements and actually builds trust, inclusion, and accountability. First, it must be genuinely inclusive. This means not just representation from powerful nations and large tech companies, but meaningful participation from the Global South, civil society, and communities most affected by AI-especially women and vulnerable groups in fragile and disaster-prone settings. Second, the dialogue should result in clear and actionable commitments. Broad principles are important, but we need practical guidance on how AI will be governed-particularly in high-risk areas like humanitarian response, surveillance, and data use. Third, there must be a shared roadmap for implementation. Governments, private sector actors, and civil society should leave with defined roles, measurable goals, and mechanisms for accountability. Finally, success lies in anchoring AI governance in justice and human dignity. AI must not deepen existing inequalities but instead serve as a tool for equity, safety, and social good. If this dialogue can create a foundation for that, it will be a meaningful step forward.

Yes, the present scenario of proxy wars, one key gap is the intersection of AI, conflict, and humanitarian crises. Current themes do not fully address how AI is used in fragile settings, where risks like surveillance abuse, misinformation, and gender-based violence are amplified. Another emerging issue is data inequality-who owns, controls, and benefits from data, especially in the Global South. Finally, offline and low-resource AI systems need attention to ensure inclusion where digital access is limited. Without addressing these, AI governance risks reinforcing existing global and social inequalities.

In India and similar Global South contexts, governance gaps are widening inequalities. Limited regulatory clarity and weak enforcement expose communities—especially women—to risks like data misuse, algorithmic bias, and tech-enabled violence. Low digital literacy further deepens exclusion. At the same time, AI offers strong opportunities in disaster response, public health, and social protection if used responsibly. With the right investments in capacity-building, inclusive datasets, and accountability frameworks, AI can become a tool for equity rather than exclusion—bridging gaps instead of reinforcing them.

The AI Dialogue can act as a bridge between fragmented global efforts, creating a shared space where countries, civil society, and industry align on common principles and priorities. It can strengthen cooperation by promoting trust-building, especially between the Global North and South, and by encouraging knowledge-sharing, capacity-building, and technology transfer. Most importantly, it can help move toward harmonized yet flexible governance frameworks—ensuring that global standards respect local contexts while upholding human rights. If done well, the Dialogue can shift AI governance from isolated actions to coordinated, inclusive global action.

The AI Dialogue should build on existing efforts like UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the OECD AI Principles, the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI), and UN-led platforms such as the UN Secretary-General's AI Advisory Body. It should also connect with regional initiatives and civil society networks working on digital rights and inclusion. Its added value lies in bringing these fragmented efforts together—especially by amplifying Global South perspectives, aligning standards with local realities, and turning principles into coordinated action. The Dialogue can serve as a neutral, inclusive space that bridges policy, practice, and accountability at the global level.

Different stakeholders must contribute in ways that reflect both their strengths and responsibilities. Governments should bring regulatory leadership and commit to rights-based policies. The private sector must ensure transparency, safety, and responsible innovation. Civil society and academia play a critical role in grounding the dialogue in lived realities, especially of marginalized communities, and in providing independent oversight. International organizations can facilitate coordination, knowledge-sharing, and capacity-building across regions. In terms of format, the AI Dialogue should move beyond formal statements to interactive, multi-stakeholder engagement. This could include thematic working groups, regional consultations (especially in the Global South), and scenario-based discussions on high-risk uses like humanitarian settings. Structurally, it should be ongoing rather than one-time, with clear follow-up mechanisms, measurable outcomes, and publicly accessible reporting. A hybrid model—combining global convenings with local inputs—would ensure both inclusivity and continuity, turning dialogue into sustained global cooperation.

Global AI governance discussions still miss many of the people most affected by these technologies. Voices from the Global South, grassroots civil society, and communities living in fragile, conflict, and disaster-prone settings remain underrepresented. Women—especially those facing digital exclusion or gender-based violence—are often spoken about, but not meaningfully included. Indigenous communities, informal workers, and non-English-speaking populations are also frequently overlooked. To include them, participation must be intentional and resourced—through regional consultations, multilingual platforms, and funding for grassroots actors to engage. Co-creation models, not token representation, are key. Embedding community-led insights into decision-making processes will make AI governance more equitable, grounded, and effective.

To make the AI Dialogue truly meaningful, the format must shift from speeches to participation and co-creation. One effective approach is scenario-based simulations, where stakeholders respond to real-world cases—like AI use in disaster response or surveillance—helping ground discussions in practical realities. Multi-stakeholder labs or co-design workshops can bring governments, tech actors, and civil society together to jointly develop solutions, rather than debate them. Incorporating regional and community-led dialogues, especially from the Global South, ensures lived experiences shape outcomes. Finally, open digital platforms for continuous input and feedback can keep the dialogue inclusive, dynamic, and ongoing—beyond a single event.

Several existing efforts offer practical pathways for effective AI governance. The UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI provides a strong rights-based framework, emphasizing human dignity, gender equality, and inclusion. The OECD AI Principles and EU AI Act demonstrate how ethical standards can be translated into risk-based regulatory approaches. On the practice side, algorithmic impact assessments (AIAs) and independent audits are emerging as concrete tools to evaluate risks and ensure accountability. Platforms like the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) and AI for Good (ITU) show how multi-stakeholder collaboration can drive responsible innovation. Importantly, community-centered approaches-such as participatory design and inclusive datasets-help ensure AI systems reflect diverse realities and reduce bias.