MoonCloud LegalTech
Responses
In your opinion, what outcomes would make the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance a success?
The perspective of the different stakeholders and new regulations in several jurisdictions, along with current developments of AI, will make this first Dialogue a huge success.
From your perspective, which of the following thematic areas identified by the General Assembly Resolution 79/325 for the AI Dialogue reflect your priorities for urgent action and active engagement?
- Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
- Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
- Protection and promotion of human rights
- Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
Please briefly explain your selection.
Human rights, ethical and safe use of AI should be in the center of AI governance discussions; technical aspects are of utmost importance but without due care for human rights and safe and ethical use of of AI, AI can do more harm than good.
How are the governance gaps and related developments/advances in the thematic areas you selected above affecting your country, region, or sector? Please highlight the most significant challenges.
In my country (Mexico) there's still a gap in governance and regulations on AI. I am a lawyer and I often see how this gaps are being used to justify the use of AI without regard to human rights, ethics, data protection, transparency etc. which I find very concerning. AI governance should be regarded as a priority.
What role can the AI Dialogue play in advancing international cooperation on AI governance?
The role of AI Dialogue is a stepping stone in advancing international cooperation on AI Governance. Stakeholders participating in the AI Dialogue will contribute to enriching the conversation and enhancing the understanding of the importance of AI governance.
What are some of the existing initiatives, partnerships, or mechanisms that the AI Dialogue should build upon or connect with, and what added value could the AI Dialogue bring?
The AI Dialogue could plug into initiatives like the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) and UN's AI for Good. Connecting with the OECD's policy work and regional efforts like the EU AI Act framework could also add to the work of the AI Dialogue's impact. The added value is all about breaking down silos. While others focus on specific rules or tech, this Dialogue can act as the connective tissue, turning high-level principles into actual, diverse conversations. It's the bridge between tech giants and local voices, ensuring global AI safety isn't just a "big tech" monologue.
How can different stakeholders contribute to the AI Dialogue? Please share recommendations for the format and structure of the AI Dialogue.
For a truly inclusive AI Dialogue, we need everyone at the table. Here's how to make it happen: Stakeholder Roles Developers: Clarify technical limits and risks. Policymakers: Focus on safety and ethical frameworks. Public/Users: Share lived experiences and privacy concerns. Format & Structure Hybrid Town Halls: Combine live Q&A with digital polls for accessibility. Working Groups: Small, diverse clusters to solve specific ethical "bottlenecks." Citizen Assemblies: Use representative lotteries to ensure non-expert voices lead the conversation. The Goal: Move from "talking at" to "building with" through transparent, iterative feedback loops.
Which voices, communities, or perspectives are currently underrepresented in global discussions on AI governance? How could they be included?
Global AI governance remains dominated by the Global North, leaving the Global South—specifically African, Latin American, and Southeast Asian nations—underrepresented. Also sidelined are Indigenous communities, whose data and lands are often extracted without consent, and grassroots labor groups (e.g., data labelers) facing precarious conditions. To bridge this, we must: Decentralize Forums: Move summits outside Western hubs. Fund Participation: Provide technical resources and travel grants for civil society. Mandate Local Impact Assessments: Require developers to prove safety within diverse linguistic and cultural contexts before deployment. True safety requires a global perspective, not just a Silicon Valley one.
What innovative engagement formats could most effectively foster meaningful and dynamic engagement during the AI Dialogue?
To foster dynamic engagement during the AI Dialogue, prioritize formats that move beyond static Q&A: Generative Sandboxes: Real-time collaborative workspaces where participants and AI co-create prototypes or policy frameworks. Red-Teaming" Tournaments: Gamified sessions where users challenge AI logic to uncover biases, fostering critical digital literacy. Perspective Swapping: AI assumes diverse stakeholder personas (e.g., ethicist, developer, end-user) to simulate multi-dimensional debates. Interactive Data Storytelling: Using live visualization to map collective sentiment and influence the dialogue's trajectory. These formats will characterize the AI as an active, transparent collaborative partner.
Please share examples of policies, practices, platforms, or approaches that promote effective AI governance or offer concrete solutions to addressing its challenges.
6
Effective AI governance is moving from theory to practice through several key mechanisms: Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIAs): Tools like Canada's Algorithmic Impact Assessment require agencies to evaluate risk before deployment. Technical Red Teaming: Platforms like Fiddler provide automated testing to identify bias and security vulnerabilities. Standards Frameworks: The NIST AI Risk Management Framework offers structured guidelines for managing trustworthiness. Regulatory Sandboxes: Used in the EU AI Act, these allow companies to test innovations under regulatory supervision, balancing safety with growth. Open-Source Observability: Tools like Arize track model performance in real-time.