Edufun Technik

Success for the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance must be defined by the transition from abstract principles to actionable, infrastructure-backed commitments. A successful outcome requires a framework that explicitly acknowledges that "AI readiness" is fundamentally linked to physical access specifically electricity, hardware, and sustainable connectivity in the Global South. I believe success will be achieved if the Dialogue produces three concrete pillars: 1. Infrastructure-First Policy: Moving beyond software regulation to mandate global support for decentralized digital foundations, such as solar-powered tech hubs in underserved areas. 2. Localized Capacity-Building Standards: Shifting the focus from passive consumption of AI tools to active participation, ensuring that teachers and students in developing regions are trained to be architects of local AI models rather than just consumers of global ones. 3. Equitable Data Sovereignty: Establishing clear, enforceable guidelines that protect data generated by students and public institutions in the Global South from being harvested and monetized by global entities without local consent or benefit. Ultimately, the Dialogue will be a success if it creates a permanent mechanism for civil society and grassroots educators to influence AI governance, ensuring that the technology serves as an empowerment tool for the most vulnerable populations rather than a catalyst for further digital inequality.

• AI capacity-building
• Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Protection and promotion of human rights

My selections, are driven by my professional experience implementing digital literacy initiatives in underserved communities. • AI Capacity-Building: My work with the Tech Equity initiative proves that training is futile without underlying hardware and power parity. True capacity-building must encompass physical access as a prerequisite for digital participation. • Safe/Secure AI: In an educational context, "safety" is not just about avoiding content filters; it is about ensuring that the tools used to educate our children are free from the algorithmic biases that reflect Western-centric norms and exclude diverse cultural perspectives. • Social/Economic Implications: We must address the risk of AI-driven workforce displacement in emerging economies. Governance must focus on how AI can be deployed to strengthen, rather than hollow out, local educational and economic structures. • Human Rights: My commitment to the empowerment of girls in technology is a human rights issue. Protecting the data privacy of students in developing nations is essential to prevent digital surveillance and exploitation. Prioritizing these four areas, we can ensure that AI governance frameworks do not just regulate technology for the technologically advanced, but actively support inclusive digital growth for all nations.

A critical cross-cutting issue missing from the current themes is the role of localized data curation and pedagogical agency. Current governance discussions focus heavily on models, yet they largely overlook the role of local educators in data governance. In many developing regions, data used to train or refine AI is scraped or generated without the participation of the communities that own it. We must empower local educators and community leaders to lead the curation of culturally relevant datasets. Furthermore, we lack a focus on intergenerational AI governance. We are currently governing AI for an adult-centric, commercial world, while the primary impact of this transition will be felt by the youth in our school systems. We need to establish an AI Youth Charter that integrates children's rights and digital literacy directly into foundational governance documents. Governance should not merely protect youth from AI-related risks; it must actively enable their role as co-creators of our future digital society. Without centering the local educator as a guardian of data and the youth as active participants in governance, we risk creating AI systems that are intellectually and culturally disconnected from the populations they are intended to serve.

In the education and STEM sectors, the current governance gaps create a dangerous disconnect between global policy and regional reality. The most significant challenge is the "infrastructure-blind" nature of current AI policy. When regulations assume reliable power, high-speed connectivity, and advanced hardware as universal baselines, they effectively exclude the very communities they aim to serve. In my work with Edufun Technik, I have seen that without addressing these fundamental capacity gaps, "AI-powered education" remains an inaccessible concept for many in the Global South, widening the digital divide rather than closing it. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in how data is harvested from underserved educational systems poses a major human rights and social risk. Algorithms trained on Western datasets often fail to account for local cultural contexts, leading to educational content that is not just irrelevant, but potentially biased against diverse learners. However, the opportunities are equally transformative. If we bridge these governance gaps by prioritizing local data sovereignty and infrastructure-backed initiatives, we can leapfrog traditional development phases. We have the chance to use AI not just as a consumer tool, but as a scaffold for localized innovation. By formalizing partnerships that mandate technology transfer alongside deployment, governance can turn AI from an imported luxury into a localized engine for economic and social mobility. To succeed, we must move from a model of "governing AI" to a model of "investing in the capability to govern AI locally." This transition is the difference between AI being a tool of exclusion or a bridge to global equity.

The AI Dialogue must evolve beyond a consultative forum into an engine for "operational diplomacy." Its primary role should be to function as a bridge between high-level ethical frameworks and the realities of grassroots implementation in the Global South. International cooperation often stalls because policies are drafted in isolation from the communities they intend to serve. The Dialogue can advance cooperation by formalizing a "Global Feedback Loop," where the success of local infrastructure and digital literacy initiatives like the Tech Equity pilots I have led directly informs the development of global standards. By prioritizing the standardization of "AI-Ready Infrastructure" requirements, the Dialogue can create a shared language for what is required for nations to participate in the digital economy. This shifts cooperation from theoretical alignment on "ethics" to concrete alignment on "enablement." The Dialogue should actively map and connect localized technology initiatives across borders, allowing developing nations like Nigeria to share proven pedagogical models and hardware frameworks. Ultimately, the Dialogue must ensure that international cooperation is not defined by the flow of AI tools from North to South, but by the creation of decentralized, cross-border collaborative ecosystems. Prioritizing the experiences of educators and STEM directors who navigate infrastructure gaps daily, the Dialogue can ensure that global governance is grounded in diverse, real-world contexts, facilitating a level of cooperation that is both inclusive and structurally sustainable.

The AI Dialogue should anchor its efforts in existing global frameworks, specifically UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and the goals set out in the Global Digital Compact. These initiatives provide the necessary normative foundation, but they require a functional mechanism to accelerate implementation. The AI Dialogue should build upon these by connecting with regional STEM and digital literacy hubs that are already operating on the ground. My work with Edufun Technik and the Tech Equity initiative demonstrates that there is a vast, unmapped network of community-led technology labs and educational cooperatives that are effectively bridging digital divides. The Dialogue should treat these local entities as essential partners rather than passive recipients of policy. The added value the AI Dialogue brings is its unique capacity for "Implementation Synthesis." While organizations like UNESCO and the ITU offer high-level guidance, the Dialogue can act as the mechanism that standardizes the how of AI integration. It can translate abstract ethical guidelines into localized technical protocols such as how to build solar-powered tech hubs, curate culturally relevant training datasets, or protect student privacy in resource-constrained environments. Integrating these existing normative frameworks with the practical, evidence-based results of grassroots initiatives, the AI Dialogue can transform global consensus into actionable blueprints. This will prevent the duplication of efforts and ensure that global policy is consistently informed by the tangible, scalable successes of educators and technologists working at the front lines of digital inclusion.

To make the Dialogue truly inclusive, we must move beyond intermittent summits. I recommend establishing permanent "Thematic Working Groups" that pair policymakers with practitioners educators, social entrepreneurs, and technical leads who are actively managing digital equity on the ground. These groups should prioritize "Evidence-Based Governance," where policies are tested against real-world data from local implementation pilots, such as the Tech Equity initiatives I have led. Structurally, the Dialogue should implement an "Innovation Portal" a digital repository where civil society can submit field reports and case studies rather than just abstract opinion pieces. This creates a feedback loop where global policy is constantly informed by grassroots reality. Furthermore, regional roundtables are essential; they allow us to translate high-level governance into context-specific action plans that reflect the unique infrastructure and cultural challenges of different nations. By giving practitioners a permanent seat in these working groups, we ensure that governance remains agile and relevant. The format must encourage transparency, allowing stakeholders to track how their input directly influences the development of standards. This approach turns the Dialogue from a static forum into a dynamic engine for collaborative, evidence-backed AI policy that bridges the gap between diplomatic intent and operational reality.

Currently, the conversation is dominated by state representatives and large-scale tech entities. The voices most critical to the future of AI grassroots educators, rural youth, and local technology entrepreneurs are severely underrepresented. As a STEM educator and founder, I see that our perspectives are often filtered through diplomatic or corporate lenses, losing the nuance of how AI actually impacts the classroom or the local economy in underserved regions. To include these voices, we must lower the barrier to entry. Consultations are often bureaucratic and time-consuming, which disqualifies those of us working on the front lines. We need a targeted outreach strategy that treats local STEM organizations and regional educational boards as primary stakeholders rather than secondary observers. The UN should actively invite representatives from community-led tech hubs to contribute, perhaps by allocating specific "Practitioner Slots" in every session. Again, the Dialogue should provide digital toolkits in local languages to explain governance concepts, ensuring that people don't need a background in international law to participate. Take note by creating an "Educator's Advisory Council," the Dialogue can proactively seek input from those who understand the long-term, intergenerational impact of AI on society. We need to stop waiting for these voices to come to us and start building channels that reach them where they work.

We need to move away from traditional, passive keynote sessions. To foster meaningful engagement, I suggest "Field-to-Policy Showcases" where practitioners present live, evidence-based results from their own digital literacy or tech-equity pilots. Seeing a functional, solar-powered learning lab or a student-led AI project provides policymakers with the concrete context they often lack. This shifts the focus from theoretical debates to practical, scalable solutions. I will also recommend hosting "Policy Hackathons" focused on specific infrastructure hurdles. These sessions would bring together software developers, policy analysts, and educators to co-create solutions for localized connectivity or data privacy issues in real-time. This format democratizes the process, proving that governance is a collaborative design challenge, not just a legal one. Virtual "Living Labs" are another powerful tool; these could be recurring, interactive webinars that allow stakeholders to virtually tour and engage with local technology initiatives across the globe. This builds a sense of shared purpose and provides real-world examples of how AI impacts different cultures. By utilizing these active, solution-oriented formats, we ensure that the Dialogue is not just a place for talking, but a space for tangible, dynamic problem-solving that reflects the diversity of the global technological landscape.

How do you teach the architects of the future in total darkness? How do you explain the digital age without a single computer, or mentor a child in cloud computing when there is no internet? It feels impossible yet this is the daily reality for millions. Artificial intelligence is often framed as the pinnacle of modern education, yet it is anchored in the most basic of needs: electricity, hardware, and reliable connectivity. When we ignore these foundational requirements, we are not just failing to teach; we are actively excluding an entire generation from the future. This is why my work with the Tech Equity initiative focuses on building solar-powered, localized digital foundations. True AI governance must stop viewing access as a luxury and start treating it as a prerequisite. If we want AI to be a global equalizer, we must mandate that infrastructure reliable power and hardware is the first, non-negotiable pillar of any policy. We cannot build a high-tech future on a low-tech foundation. It is time to move from abstract rhetoric to the gritty, necessary work of ensuring every classroom, regardless of its location, has the power to turn on the screen. Governance that ignores the "last mile" of infrastructure is governance that leaves the most promising minds behind. We must bridge this gap, not with words, but with the tangible resources that make education possible.