Delhi Technological University, New Delhi, India

A successful first Global Dialogue on AI Governance would be one that meaningfully achieves the objectives of the event in alignment with the vision of the United Nations for inclusive, ethical, and sustainable development. It should bring together contributions from governments, industry, academia, civil society, and experts from diverse fields to exchange ideas and develop practical solutions. Success would also involve balanced discussions on the opportunities and risks of AI, its impact on different sections of society, and the challenges of governance, equity, safety, and access. Finally, the dialogue should be effectively shared with the world so its important message reaches wider audiences and encourages global awareness, cooperation, and responsible innovation.

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

I selected these priorities based on both urgency and my experience working in applied AI for healthcare and sensing systems. In real-world settings, I have seen that without safe, secure and trustworthy AI, even promising technologies struggle to gain public trust or be deployed responsibly. I have also witnessed major bottlenecks in AI capacity-building, especially in access to infrastructure, expertise, and implementation support across developing contexts. I prioritised the social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI because AI affects people differently across societies, and technical progress alone is not enough. Finally, protection and promotion of human rights is essential to ensure AI remains human-centered, fair, and inclusive. From my perspective, the urgent need is to move from discussion to practical action through safer systems, broader capacity, and more inclusive global cooperation.

Yes, absolutely. I would first like to sincerely appreciate the organizers for putting together such a thoughtful and timely dialogue. The themes already identified are strong, relevant, and cover the major issues that truly need attention in global AI governance. From my perspective, a few additional cross-cutting areas that could enrich the discussion are equitable access to AI infrastructure and compute, readiness for deployment in sensitive sectors like healthcare and education, evaluation across diverse populations and languages, and public AI literacy. I mention these only as complementary points, because the event framework itself has already done an excellent job of addressing the key priorities. Overall, it reflects careful planning and a genuine effort to make the dialogue inclusive, practical, and globally meaningful.

In my country and region, Northern India and especially in sectors like healthcare, education, and digital services, AI governance gaps are creating both real challenges and important opportunities. One of the biggest challenges is that AI is being adopted much faster than the systems needed to govern it responsibly. Many institutions are eager to use AI, but often do not yet have the technical capacity, infrastructure, regulatory clarity, or trained professionals required for safe deployment. In healthcare, this is particularly sensitive, because inaccurate, biased, or non-transparent AI systems can directly affect diagnosis, decision-making, and patient well-being. Another concern I increasingly notice is that many people are starting to trust AI responses too easily, without enough analysis or verification. With large language models, this is risky, because they can sometimes produce misleading or completely incorrect information in a very confident way. In areas like healthcare, such errors can have serious consequences. This makes strong standards and public-interest safeguards even more necessary. There is also the broader issue of unequal access to compute, quality datasets, local-language systems, and research ecosystems, especially in developing regions. At the same time, the opportunity is enormous. If governed well, AI can improve healthcare access, support education, increase productivity, and help solve local challenges. From my own experience in applied AI, I have seen both the promise and the bottlenecks firsthand. That is why I believe governance is needed not to hold innovation back, but to make it safer, fairer, and more meaningful for society.

The AI Dialogue can play a very meaningful role by creating a trusted space where governments, industry, academia, and civil society can come together to listen, exchange ideas, and work toward stronger cooperation on AI governance. When people from different regions, sectors, and backgrounds participate openly, it becomes easier to develop solutions that are more practical, balanced, and grounded in real-world needs. That kind of exchange also makes wider implementation more possible, because shared ideas are often easier for countries and institutions to adapt and apply. At the same time, dialogues led by the UN and other respected institutions carry real influence. They help shape global thinking and can create important moral and policy pressure on governments, organizations, and companies to act responsibly and safeguard human dignity, public interest, and the broader values of humanity. In that sense, the Dialogue is not only a forum for discussion, but also a platform for building trust, encouraging accountability, and guiding AI development in a direction that benefits mankind as a whole.

The AI Dialogue should build on initiatives such as the UN's digital cooperation efforts and Global Digital Compact, UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the OECD AI Principles, the G7 Hiroshima AI Process, and platforms like AI for Good. These have already created strong foundations in ethics, trust, human rights, and responsible AI governance. The added value of the AI Dialogue would be to connect these efforts and push stronger global implementation. It can help turn principles into action by encouraging countries, organizations, and companies not only to discuss rules and safeguards, but to apply them consistently across the world. It can also support stricter adoption of standards where needed, while ensuring that AI's promising benefits are advanced and its harmful effects are identified and addressed urgently. It can further add value by reducing fragmentation, strengthening coordination, and giving more space to developing countries and underrepresented communities in shaping practical solutions. In that sense, the Dialogue can help move global AI governance from scattered efforts to more inclusive, effective, and enforceable cooperation in the public interest.

Different stakeholders can contribute in different but equally important ways. Governments can share policy priorities, regulatory experience, and implementation challenges. Industry can provide technical knowledge, real-world deployment experience, and risk-management practices. Academia and researchers can contribute evidence, analysis, and independent evaluation. Civil society, youth, and affected communities can bring public-interest concerns, ethical perspectives, and lived realities. For the format, I would recommend that the AI Dialogue be inclusive, practical, and action-oriented. A strong structure could include a high-level opening session to define the common vision, thematic sessions for focused discussion, breakout or roundtable sessions for deeper exchange, and a closing session to summarize key recommendations and next steps. It would also be helpful to ensure that the format is not limited to formal speeches. Interactive discussions, expert panels, moderated multistakeholder dialogues, and opportunities for open exchange would make the process more meaningful. This would help move beyond general statements and allow participants to share practical solutions, implementation lessons, and region-specific concerns. In my view, the Dialogue will be most effective if it gives equal importance to participation, exchange of ideas, and actionable outcomes. That is how it can become not just a discussion platform, but a space that builds cooperation, strengthens understanding, and supports practical implementation across the world.

Several important voices are still underrepresented in global discussions on AI governance. These include people from developing countries, local-language communities, small institutions, public-sector practitioners, grassroots civil society groups, youth, persons with disabilities, and communities most affected by AI systems but often not involved in shaping them. In many cases, discussions are still dominated by a limited group of technologically advanced countries, large companies, and well-resourced institutions. From my perspective, this gap matters because AI does not affect everyone in the same way. Its risks and benefits are shaped by language, culture, access, infrastructure, economic conditions, and local realities. If these perspectives are missing, governance frameworks may appear strong in theory but remain weak in fairness, inclusiveness, and practical implementation. At the same time, inclusion is not only about being heard. It is also about ensuring that discussions lead to timely and effective implementation of rules, safeguards, and accountability measures that protect public interest and address shortcomings before they cause wider harm. These voices can be included by ensuring balanced regional representation, supporting participation from low- and middle-income countries, involving experts from non-technical sectors such as healthcare and education, and creating meaningful space for civil society and youth. Multilingual participation, accessible formats, and stronger follow-through mechanisms are also important. In my view, effective AI governance requires both broad participation and real action. The more diverse the voices, and the stronger the implementation, the more fair, practical, and globally relevant the outcomes will be.

Meaningful engagement is often strongest when participants can interact, challenge ideas, and co-create solutions rather than only deliver formal statements. For that reason, I believe the AI Dialogue would benefit from a mix of traditional and innovative formats. One effective format would be moderated roundtable discussions with balanced participation from governments, industry, academia, civil society, and experts from diverse domains. Bringing together different backgrounds helps exchange ideas, identify real problems, share practical solutions already implemented, and learn from success stories that can inspire wider adoption. Another useful approach would be scenario-based workshops, where participants discuss real-world AI governance cases such as healthcare risks, misinformation, employment disruption, or bias in decision-making systems. This helps move discussions from theory to practical action. Cross-sector innovation labs could also be valuable, where participants collaborate to design safeguards, recommendations, or implementation roadmaps within a limited time. Such sessions can produce concrete outcomes. To broaden participation, the Dialogue could include digital engagement tools such as live polling, audience questions, multilingual virtual participation, and interactive feedback platforms. This would allow wider inclusion beyond those physically present. I would also recommend a youth and emerging leaders forum, ensuring future generations have a voice in shaping AI governance. Most importantly, each format should connect discussion with action. Clear summaries, practical recommendations, and follow-up mechanisms after each session would ensure engagement leads to results. In my view, the most successful Dialogue will be one where participants do not only speak, but genuinely listen, collaborate, learn from one another, and help shape implementable solutions.

Some strong examples are the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the OECD AI Principles, the EU AI Act, the UK AI Security Institute and AI policy approach, India's IndiaAI Mission and AI governance initiatives, Singapore's Model AI Governance Framework and AI Verify, and Japan's AI Guidelines for Business. Together, these show different but practical approaches to AI governance. The EU model is useful for risk-based regulation, the UK approach highlights safety and institutional capacity, India's efforts are important for democratizing AI access and building a trustworthy national ecosystem, Singapore offers practical governance and testing tools for responsible deployment, and Japan provides implementation-oriented guidance for business use of AI. The added value of the AI Dialogue would be to connect these efforts and push stronger implementation across the world. It can help turn principles into action by encouraging governments, organizations, and companies not only to discuss rules and safeguards, but to apply them effectively and consistently. That includes promoting AI's promising benefits while urgently addressing harmful effects such as bias, misinformation, unsafe deployment, privacy risks, and misuse. It can also reduce fragmentation, encourage exchange of practical solutions, and support wider participation from developing countries and underrepresented regions. In that sense, the Dialogue can strengthen what already exists while making global AI governance more inclusive, implementable, and focused on public interest.