Session
Organizer 1: Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Organizer 2: Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Organizer 3: Civil Society, African Group
Organizer 2: Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Organizer 3: Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 1: Melody Musoni, Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 2: Luca Belli, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 3: Sara FIALHO ESPOSITO, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
Speaker 4: Tobias Judin, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Luca Belli, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 3: Sara FIALHO ESPOSITO, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
Speaker 4: Tobias Judin, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Format
Roundtable
Duration (minutes): 60
Format description: Given the diversity of stakeholders (regulators, industry leaders, researchers, international org and CSOs), a roundtable format encourages interactive, open, and peer-to-peer exchange rather than passive listening. This setup enables participants to share perspectives, challenge assumptions, and collaboratively explore governance models in an inclusive manner. The 60-minute timeframe allows for a well-structured session: a brief introduction to set the stage, followed by a facilitated dialogue that prioritizes key institutional design challenges and possible solutions around the three main policy questions, and participant engagement through targeted questions and knowledge-sharing. This format maximizes learning, an open space for questions from participants, networking, and actionable takeaways.
Duration (minutes): 60
Format description: Given the diversity of stakeholders (regulators, industry leaders, researchers, international org and CSOs), a roundtable format encourages interactive, open, and peer-to-peer exchange rather than passive listening. This setup enables participants to share perspectives, challenge assumptions, and collaboratively explore governance models in an inclusive manner. The 60-minute timeframe allows for a well-structured session: a brief introduction to set the stage, followed by a facilitated dialogue that prioritizes key institutional design challenges and possible solutions around the three main policy questions, and participant engagement through targeted questions and knowledge-sharing. This format maximizes learning, an open space for questions from participants, networking, and actionable takeaways.
Policy Question(s)
1. Centralized versus decentralized AI governance models - what are their advantages and challenges and how can policymakers determine the most effective approach based on their national frameworks?
2. What role should data protection authorities, competition regulators, and sectoral bodies play in AI oversight, and how can they effectively collaborate to address cross-cutting AI risks and opportunities?
3. What are the challenges of existing supranational governance models, such as the European Union, and what lessons can be learned to promote cross-border AI regulatory cooperation?
What will participants gain from attending this session? Participants will gain a deeper understanding of the institutional design choices that shape AI governance and their impact on innovation and regulatory effectiveness. Through insights from diverse experts, participants will explore how different models affect regulatory clarity, enforcement, and adaptability to emerging AI risks. Additionally, by discussing innovative institutional solutions, the workshop will also propose actionable strategies to mitigate institutional fragmentation, enhance regulatory coherence, and balance oversight with innovation-friendly policies.
Attendees will leave with practical takeaways on how governments, businesses, and international bodies can design AI governance frameworks that are not only effective and coordinated but also support sustainable and responsible AI innovation in a rapidly evolving landscape.
Description:
Nations face a critical question: which institutions should govern AI? The challenge is not just regulatory but it is a fundamental issue of institutional design that will determine the effectiveness, adaptability, and inclusivity of AI governance. Governments must determine whether AI oversight should fall under existing regulatory bodies, require the creation of new institutions, or be managed through a cross-sectoral approach. These choices have far-reaching implications, shaping regulatory clarity but most importantly the conditions for sustainable and responsible AI innovation. A major challenge under these circumstances is institutional fragmentation, where multiple regulatory bodies such as data protection authorities, competition regulators, consumer protection agencies, and sectoral oversight bodies may have overlapping mandates without clear coordination mechanisms. This fragmentation risks regulatory gaps and inefficiencies that could slow down innovation or create legal uncertainty for businesses and researchers. At the same time, over-centralized governance models may struggle to accommodate the fast-evolving and multi-sectoral nature of AI, leading to rigid structures that are ill-equipped to address emerging risks and opportunities. The complexity of institutional design is further amplified in cross-border contexts, such as the supranational model of the European Union. Diverging approaches across jurisdictions could hinder global AI governance harmonization, raising concerns about compliance burdens for businesses and inconsistent enforcement of AI-related norms. Beyond regulatory effectiveness, institutional choices will shape the conditions for innovation in a society, determining whether it advances in ways that are ethical, sustainable, and inclusive. The workshop will address the urgent policy dilemma of how to design AI governance institutions that are effective, coordinated, and innovation-friendly. Experts from different regions and sectors will explore how different institutional models impact responsible and sustainable AI innovation, what mechanisms can enhance regulatory coherence and how centralized vs. decentralized approaches shape AI governance.
Nations face a critical question: which institutions should govern AI? The challenge is not just regulatory but it is a fundamental issue of institutional design that will determine the effectiveness, adaptability, and inclusivity of AI governance. Governments must determine whether AI oversight should fall under existing regulatory bodies, require the creation of new institutions, or be managed through a cross-sectoral approach. These choices have far-reaching implications, shaping regulatory clarity but most importantly the conditions for sustainable and responsible AI innovation. A major challenge under these circumstances is institutional fragmentation, where multiple regulatory bodies such as data protection authorities, competition regulators, consumer protection agencies, and sectoral oversight bodies may have overlapping mandates without clear coordination mechanisms. This fragmentation risks regulatory gaps and inefficiencies that could slow down innovation or create legal uncertainty for businesses and researchers. At the same time, over-centralized governance models may struggle to accommodate the fast-evolving and multi-sectoral nature of AI, leading to rigid structures that are ill-equipped to address emerging risks and opportunities. The complexity of institutional design is further amplified in cross-border contexts, such as the supranational model of the European Union. Diverging approaches across jurisdictions could hinder global AI governance harmonization, raising concerns about compliance burdens for businesses and inconsistent enforcement of AI-related norms. Beyond regulatory effectiveness, institutional choices will shape the conditions for innovation in a society, determining whether it advances in ways that are ethical, sustainable, and inclusive. The workshop will address the urgent policy dilemma of how to design AI governance institutions that are effective, coordinated, and innovation-friendly. Experts from different regions and sectors will explore how different institutional models impact responsible and sustainable AI innovation, what mechanisms can enhance regulatory coherence and how centralized vs. decentralized approaches shape AI governance.
Expected Outcomes
1. The workshop will provide a platform for participants to exchange experiences, challenges, and best practices, facilitating connections that could lead to future collaborations on policy research, regulatory experiments, or knowledge-sharing initiatives.
2. A clearer understanding of the institutional design trade-offs in AI governance, including the risks of fragmentation and over-centralization.
3. Concrete insights into best practices and mechanisms that enhance regulatory coherence while fostering responsible AI innovation.
4. Comparative perspectives on governance models from different regions and sectors, helping participants navigate AI oversight challenges in their own contexts.
Hybrid Format: To ensure effective interaction in this hybrid session, we will have two moderators: one focusing on facilitating the overall discussion and another dedicated to engaging the online audience. This dual approach will ensure that both onsite and online participants have equal opportunities to contribute and interact.
The session will use a shared interactive platform (e.g., Mentimeter or Slido) to enable real-time Q&A, live polling, and comments. Both onsite and online participants will use these tools to submit questions or share insights, ensuring an inclusive dialogue.
The online moderator will actively monitor the chat and voice contributions from online attendees, ensuring their input is integrated seamlessly into the discussion. Onsite participants will also be encouraged to consider and respond to online contributions, creating a dynamic and inclusive exchange. A clear structure will guide the session, maximizing engagement across both formats while ensuring equal participation opportunities.