Pride AI and Business Solutions

Ensuring that it accomplish the following: - inclusive global voice - alignment reached to transition governance from " guide" to " enforcement" - lifecycle based governance framework in place through- align--> guide-->track approach

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

Today, there's broad global agreement on the need for AI governance and even on the key focus areas. Labs, companies and Nations largely share the same aspirations: maximize AI's benefits, minimize its risks, increase investment, foster collaboration, and build greater capabilities. However, the real divergence appears in how countries define their priorities. The United States and United Kingdom emphasize innovation, China focuses on national power and control, the European Union adopts a risk-based tiered system, Africa prioritizes development, and countries like Japan aim to become AI-friendly nations. While we agree on the need for governance, the central challenge is moving from voluntary guidelines to enforceable frameworks. Hence a common framework to guide us through explainable process, trust, safety and standard approach is helpful- This is not just good governance - it is how we make AI safe, equitable, sustainable, and sovereign for humanity.

The list is exhaustive but we also should be cautious of the implication of geo-politics and how labs, companies and nations are leveraging AI in global supremacy or race. One development that deeply concerns me is the growing call from some global leaders to let AI fight AI - the belief that only ever-smarter systems can win this arms race. This worries me greatly. And it necessitates formal, global governance. Some have legitimate concerns: if we have enforceable governance in select jurisdictions while others have unrestricted ride with no guardrail - it constrained innovation unfairly in those regions. Hence we should be cognizant to that fact apart from the immense possibility of AI, the implicit danger if handle poorly needed to be clearly listed, debated and managed

In my Country, Ethiopia - we have a leadership who goes all in on technology as a key enabler or development, efficiency that is a good thing but we are not immune from country effect where by like many in Africa we are relying on the global tech, some platforms are not accessible in our jurisdiction, we have to navigate around open source and closed source models. So despite the many faceted effort in our frontier the absence of standard governance restricts the transparency and efficiency of running various programs carried out in our region and beyond so that we as a public and private institution can gauge progresses and draw a lesson accordingly so that we ensure that things are carried out with an eye to create generational impact for current and future generations.

The AI dialogue will definitely bring all stakeholders together, have them rethink on the divergence, create alignment on the need on convergence, and institute a global team to align, govern and track mile stone in a consistent manner to ensure that AI is delivering on its promise and possibilities with out impacting in hindering manner for the globe and unfortunate citizens by increasing in equality and also unfair distribution of knowledge and power.

The EU AI Act: This is the most comprehensive "Regulation Pole," utilizing a binding, risk-based tiered system that prohibits "unacceptable practices". The AU Continental AI Strategy (Africa's Agenda 2063): A "Developmental Catalyst" focused on sovereign compute, localized datasets, and bridging the global AI divide. U.S. & UK Innovation Frameworks: These emphasize "Innovation First" through non-statutory principles, iterative guidelines, and market-led safety standards. Japan's AI-Friendly Ecosystem: Focuses on "Physical AI," robotics, and Agile PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycles to evolve governance alongside technology. China's Interim Measures: Focus on strict algorithmic adherence to state safety parameters, mandatory transparency in training data origins, and societal stability.

I am fully supportive of the current process of engaging stakeholders- but may be doing more of a digital promotion so that many expert would have the opportunity to learn and contribute too...I learn about this initiative lately during my random search. So the more folks have visibility, the better they would be able to support.

Frankly - thanks for the digital platform all voices are being transpired by in different platform or focus or scope but at different magnitude and not necessarily by being getting attention or action...so the UN would be a global voice- thanks for that but needs to be expedited for action

May be a platform dedicated to continue the engagement and more group in social media accounts...

Honorable co-chairs, distinguished speakers, and fellow attendees, Hello from Ethiopia. I am Tamiru Belayneh, Founder & CEO of Pride AI & Business Solutions. I am an AI practitioner focusing at the intersection of finance, governance and technology transformation with 23+ years' experience in Ethiopia & US. I'm honored to participate in this important session ahead of the upcoming AI Global Governance Summit. I fully support the theme in the concept note and the planned workshop rhythm - But I want to add an enabling framework to support the orchestration to solidify & ensure the metrics are complete and tracked objectively. Today, there's broad global agreement on the need for AI governance and even on the key focus areas. Labs, companies and Nations largely share the same aspirations: maximize AI's benefits, minimize its risks, increase investment, foster collaboration, and build greater capabilities. However, the real divergence appears in how countries define their priorities. The United States and United Kingdom emphasize innovation, China focuses on national power and control, the European Union adopts a risk-based tiered system, Africa prioritizes development, and countries like Japan aim to become AI-friendly nations. While we agree on the need for governance, the central challenge is moving from voluntary guidelines to enforceable frameworks. To address this, I propose establishing International Financial Reporting Standards for AI - IFRS for AI - similar to the IFRS already adopted by over one hundred forty countries for financial reporting. An AI-specific IFRS would create global standards for transparency, security, safety, and meeting many of the thematic areas covered in the concept note. One development that deeply concerns me is the growing call from some global leaders to let AI fight AI - the belief that only ever-smarter systems can win this arms race. This worries me greatly. And it necessitates formal, global governance. Some have legitimate concerns: if we have enforceable governance in select jurisdictions while others have unrestricted ride with no guardrail - it constrained innovation unfairly in those regions. I therefore urge this forum to recommend the formation of an international task force to develop AI-IFRS standard, beginning with a pilot framework within the next six to twelve months. This is not just good governance - it is how we make AI safe, equitable, sustainable, and sovereign for humanity. I want to openly share my interest and look forward to meaningfully support this critical endeavor. Thank you.