Session
Organizer 1: Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 1: Xiao Zhang, Government, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 2: Alexandra Geese, Government, Intergovernmental Organization
Speaker 3: Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 4: Michael Best, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Alexandra Geese, Government, Intergovernmental Organization
Speaker 3: Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 4: Michael Best, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Format
Theater
Duration (minutes): 90
Format description: Well prepared and structured by the moderator, a limited number of speakers with in-depth expertise about the highly complex national regulation of AI will be brought in dialogue with each other. The panelists will talk among themselves but also with the audience. The workshop targets an audience of civil servants, civil society people and companies who are involved in state or national AI regulation. The panel format is suitable for this objective because it will provide the audience with a rich, comparative perspective on AI regulation. Since China and the EU have chosen rather different approaches, it is crucial that these differences are explained in an accessible way to enable the audience to ask relevant questions. Ideally, the questions asked by the audience are enlightening to all participants on the room – including the panelists.
Duration (minutes): 90
Format description: Well prepared and structured by the moderator, a limited number of speakers with in-depth expertise about the highly complex national regulation of AI will be brought in dialogue with each other. The panelists will talk among themselves but also with the audience. The workshop targets an audience of civil servants, civil society people and companies who are involved in state or national AI regulation. The panel format is suitable for this objective because it will provide the audience with a rich, comparative perspective on AI regulation. Since China and the EU have chosen rather different approaches, it is crucial that these differences are explained in an accessible way to enable the audience to ask relevant questions. Ideally, the questions asked by the audience are enlightening to all participants on the room – including the panelists.
Policy Question(s)
1. Do the AI regulatory frameworks of China and Europe have innovative instruments or measures and what are they?
2. What are the fundamental differences between the regulatory approaches of China and Europe?
3. What are the conditions for the successful implementation of existing AI regulatory measures, such as those introduced by China and the EU?
What will participants gain from attending this session? The workshop will provide participants with an overview of the existing approaches in the field of AI regulation. Since AI regulation is complex, the workshop will narrow down the focus on regulatory innovations, which specifically address the technical characteristics of AI systems. Examples for such innovations concern new instruments to increase transparency and accountability of AI systems and provisions to strengthen user rights. Concrete policies from existing regulatory frameworks will illustrate this focus. Representatives from China and the EU, the two jurisdictions who are pioneering national regulatory frameworks for AI, will be present and explain to the audience their respective approaches. The workshop will also discuss implementation challenges, particularly the resources needed to effectively regulate AI systems. Another cross-cutting question concerns the transferability of AI regulation to other countries. At the end of the session participants will have a better understanding of regulatory options and the conditions for their success.
SDGs
Description:
One of the current challenges of Internet Governance including its shared principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures concern the rapid spread of AI-based innovations such as machine learning and, more recently, large language models. AI-related applications entail powerful capabilities that can be utilized for the public good but also involve major risks. Such risks concern, for example, a deepening of the global digital divide, human rights including labour rights but also the evolution of the public sphere and creative arts. Given the innovative potential and the risks accompanying AI, many governments are considering regulatory responses on the international and the national level. This workshop will address national Internet governance approaches. The workshop’s central question concerns innovative regulatory approaches about two topics: 1. transparency and accountability of AI systems and 2. user rights vis-à-vis AI applications. It invites governments, civil society and companies to learn from each other by discussing in a comparative manner existing and planned regulatory approaches including implementation challenges. A present, AI regulation is still at an early stage. In many countries multistakeholder discussions are taking place to consider adequate approaches, competences and instruments for a legal framework. Among the pioneering jurisdictions that represent potential model cases for AI regulation are China and the EU. A first comparative view reveals similarities but also differences in their approaches. Both, China and the EU are introducing new instruments to increase transparency and accountability of AI systems. For example, China has established an algorithm filing system to enhance security governance and transparency in AI applications. The EU act, on the other hand, requires providers of high-risk AI systems to guarantee the automatic recordings of all events over the lifetime of a system. The workshop will look at these instruments in detail with a view of their applicability for third countries.
One of the current challenges of Internet Governance including its shared principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures concern the rapid spread of AI-based innovations such as machine learning and, more recently, large language models. AI-related applications entail powerful capabilities that can be utilized for the public good but also involve major risks. Such risks concern, for example, a deepening of the global digital divide, human rights including labour rights but also the evolution of the public sphere and creative arts. Given the innovative potential and the risks accompanying AI, many governments are considering regulatory responses on the international and the national level. This workshop will address national Internet governance approaches. The workshop’s central question concerns innovative regulatory approaches about two topics: 1. transparency and accountability of AI systems and 2. user rights vis-à-vis AI applications. It invites governments, civil society and companies to learn from each other by discussing in a comparative manner existing and planned regulatory approaches including implementation challenges. A present, AI regulation is still at an early stage. In many countries multistakeholder discussions are taking place to consider adequate approaches, competences and instruments for a legal framework. Among the pioneering jurisdictions that represent potential model cases for AI regulation are China and the EU. A first comparative view reveals similarities but also differences in their approaches. Both, China and the EU are introducing new instruments to increase transparency and accountability of AI systems. For example, China has established an algorithm filing system to enhance security governance and transparency in AI applications. The EU act, on the other hand, requires providers of high-risk AI systems to guarantee the automatic recordings of all events over the lifetime of a system. The workshop will look at these instruments in detail with a view of their applicability for third countries.
Expected Outcomes
The idea for this workshop arose as part of the preparations for a comparative lecture on the regulation of AI in the East and West. The current academic literature shows that the regulation of AI is a dynamic and even experimental policy field where a lot of learning is required among all actors involved. Yet, there is not enough awareness yet of the different national approaches to regulating AI. This workshop wants to bring together experts and practitioners to create an international multistakeholder network of observers who are interested in learning from each other in the field of regulatory innovation and implementation. If successful, such a network on AI regulation could prepare further sessions at future IGFs.
Hybrid Format: ● The interactive panel format allows a dynamic and flexible discussion. The organizer has extensive experience with managing sessions in the IGF since 2006, as well as in other venues. This includes substantial experience with managing hybrid sessions and ensuring the inclusive participation of people who are onsite and online.
● The moderator will keep an eye on raised hands in both spaces, give everyone a chance to speak in turn, set time limits and promote respectful interactions, ensure people can respond to points directed at them, read out any typed questions if someone’s sound fails.
● We will use the Zoom chat to include virtual participants and encourage people in the room to also log into the Zoom session.
● We will recruit one or two participants to live-tweet the session so that people are also able to follow the conversation in that manner.