Session
Organizer 1: Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Organizer 2: Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Organizer 3: Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
Organizer 4: Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 1: von Knebel Moritz, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Vance Lockton, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 3: Saba Tiku Beyene, Technical Community, African Group
Speaker 4: Alexandra Krastins Lopes, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 5: Madan Oberoi , Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
Classroom
Duration (minutes): 75
Format description: We propose a 75-minute classroom session designed to promote a participatory and inclusive discussion. To create a dynamic and collaborative environment, the session will begin with expert scene-setting, followed by guided small-group discussions that incorporate both online and onsite perspectives. As the aim is to develop a set of recommendations and identify novel approaches to balance ethical principles and AI regulation, great emphasis will be placed on constructive dialogue. The 75-minute format ensures ample time for in-depth exploration of policy questions while allowing space for meaningful audience participation, and feedback.
1. What are the key loopholes in existing international and regional regulations governing AI, and how can they be addressed to build a more resilient, trustworthy and harmonized digital ecosystem? 2. How can global regulatory frameworks and multistakeholder engagement proactively embed ethical foresight in AI governance to ensure adaptability to the dynamic nature of AI? 3. How can cross-border regulatory cooperation help mitigate jurisdictional conflicts and enforcement challenges to ensure accountability for digital platforms operating across multiple jurisdictions? 4. Whose voices, values, and lived experiences are informing AI policymaking and how can marginalized communities meaningfully participate in shaping ethical AI governance?
What will participants gain from attending this session? Participants will gain a critical understanding of AI governance, analyzing how existing regulatory frameworks succeed or fall short in addressing ethical foresight. Through comparative frameworks from different regions, they will be able to understand how different countries and regions integrate ethical foresight into AI regulation, identify best practices and challenges. Participants will also explore strategies to enhance cross-border regulatory collaboration, and embed ethical considerations into future-proof governance structures. Interactive discussions will focus on ethical foresight in legislation, and enforcement challenges within the global digital trust sphere. The session will also give participants the opportunity to evaluate the limitations of reactive governance and identify proactive models/approaches that can adapt to evolving AI technologies. It will also illustrate practical approaches for various stakeholders to bridge the gap between ethical principles and regulatory enforcement.
Description:
The digital revolution is outpacing our ability to govern it. With each leap in technological advancement, we face unprecedented ethical dilemmas and regulatory gaps. This session tackles this question: how can we ensure ethical foresight and regulatory diligence without stifling innovation? As AI continues to integrate into various sectors of the economy and society, its potential for both transformative benefits and substantial risks becomes increasingly evident. This dynamic landscape calls for a proactive and nuanced regulatory approach; one that balances innovation while ensuring the protection of public interest and the upholding of ethical standards. While efforts to govern AI have emerged, such as the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) and UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, the first global agreement of its kind - these initiatives highlight a growing consensus that the sociotechnical impacts of transformative AI should not be left unchecked. Instead, they may require proactive oversight and accountability to safeguard fundamental values. However, despite ongoing regulatory efforts, many regulatory frameworks fail to address emerging ethical challenges, creating loopholes that can be exploited. This session will examine major regulatory frameworks (EU’s AI Act, South Korea’s Framework Act on the Development of AI, USA’s Colorado AI Act of 2024, African Union's Continental AI Strategy & UN AI Resolution etc.,) comparing strengths and weaknesses across different regions. The session will also explore what ideal regulatory frameworks should include to be proactive, ethically resilient, and adaptable. Key questions will focus on the principles of ethical foresight, examining how regulations should be structured to integrate ethics as a core component rather than an afterthought. By analyzing frameworks and identifying regulatory loopholes, participants will collaboratively develop recommendations for strengthening digital trust and ethical oversight in AI governance.
1. Identify key gaps in existing regulatory frameworks and their ethical oversight implications. 2. Facilitate a multi-stakeholder dialogue to examine the principles of ethical foresight and regulatory diligence. 3. Develop recommendations for AI regulatory frameworks to be more proactive, ethically resilient, and adaptable in conjunction with broader social and value changes. 4. Promote collaboration among policymakers, industry leaders, civil society, and academia to create a roadmap for AI governance that balances innovation with accountability and ethical oversight. 5. A session report with key takeaways and recommendations will be published to be shared with UN, other relevant agencies/ think tanks, and national and regional IGF communities. Since many AI legislation are still in the draft stage, there is an opportunity for governments and the wider IGF community to create a broader impact and generate interest on the subject.
Hybrid Format: 1. We will leverage Zoom or other video conferencing platform, as provided by IGF Secretariat, for live participation. This will integrate online and onsite attendees through video and chat features. 2. A dedicated online moderator will facilitate engagement, ensuring remote voices are actively included. 3. Remote and on-site speakers and participants will be given equal opportunity to speak and ask questions respectively 4. To enhance interactivity, we will use Slido for live polling and Q&A, allowing real-time feedback from all participants. Google Docs will provide a collaborative space for asynchronous contributions. A large screen will display online participants, making them visible in discussions. 5. We will integrate third party tools with video conferencing tool like Zoom, to provide subtitles in the remaining five official languages of the UN to ensure higher participation for those less fluent in English language and to promote inclusiveness.
Report
This workshop discussion focused on the urgent need to strike a balance between forward-looking, ethical governance of AI and the practical challenges of regulatory design in a fragmented international landscape. The session brought together diverse perspectives to explore how to embed ethical foresight into governance frameworks while avoiding the pitfalls of rigid or reactive regulation. The session was moderated by Tayyaba Iftikhar (on-site), Muhammad Umair, and Harisa Shahid (online) and featured speakers from diverse regions, including representatives from the private sector, civil society, the technical community, and government.
Speakers emphasized that responsible AI governance demands more than high-level principles; it requires operational, inclusive, and context-aware mechanisms that anticipate harms, enable accountability, and promote international cooperation.
Key Discussion Points
- Alexandra Krastins (Brazil) emphasized that ethical foresight must be an ongoing, operational process embedded into AI governance structures. This includes tools like ethics committees, impact assessments, and internal accountability mechanisms. She warned against importing Global North assumptions into Global South contexts and advocated for flexible, risk-based approaches, voluntary codes of conduct, and international cooperation platforms that respect local realities while harmonizing safety and accountability standards.
- Moritz Von Knebel (UK) critiqued the notion of clear “regulatory gaps,” likening the current landscape to isolated “knowledge islands” amidst vast uncertainty. He highlighted the lack of technical expertise and the reactive nature of existing frameworks, noting the risks of regulatory arbitrage in a patchwork global system. He advocated for adaptive regulatory architectures, regulatory sandboxes, and capacity-building including independent technical advisory bodies—and called for a shared vocabulary to foster international coordination.
- Vance Lockten (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada) argued that regulators need more influence over the design and deployment of AI systems, not just their aftermath. Referencing anticipatory governance models, he stressed the importance of agile regulation, international cooperation, and cultural knowledge sharing among regulators. He highlighted disparities in institutional capacity, noting that while some countries have dedicated AI expertise, others operate with minimal resources, raising concerns about equitable and effective oversight.
- Phumzile Van Damme (South Africa) called for the creation of international AI law, ideally through a UN-led process that incorporates diverse ethical systems and voices. She identified two key inclusion challenges: the absence of AI policy in many African countries due to competing priorities, and the myth of AI’s democratization. She advocated for democratization across the entire AI lifecycle—from design to governance to profit distribution—and urged both the Global South to assert itself and global institutions to proactively include underrepresented voices.
- Yasmin Al-Douri (Germany) stressed the need for infrastructure as a foundation for democratizing AI access. She proposed a use-case-based regulatory framework (rather than risk categories), which considers how AI is deployed across sectors. Regulations, she argued, must be implementable and understandable by developers, and multistakeholder approaches must include youth meaningfully—not just symbolically. She emphasized co-creation spaces where diverse disciplines and generations work together on policy and technical solutions.
Audience Engagement:
The audience actively engaged with the panel through pointed and timely questions that reflected both conceptual and practical concerns. One participant asked whether we are entering an era of AI fragmentation, akin to internet fragmentation, due to the absence of consensus-based definitions and a shared global language. Another audience member asked whether any exemplary AI policy frameworks currently exist that successfully balance innovation and ethical oversight. A third question addressed the pushback from tech companies against what they frame as excessive regulation, raising concerns about whether the AI space is headed toward a confrontation similar to the one seen between governments and social media platforms.
Conclusion:
The session emphasized the need for anticipatory and inclusive AI governance that balances innovation with accountability. Speakers called for adaptive regulatory frameworks, international coordination, and meaningful inclusion of underrepresented voices, particularly from low income countries and youth communities. While challenges like regulatory fragmentation and limited capacity persist, the discussion highlighted promising approaches such as use-case-based models and co-creation spaces. The workshop concluded with a call for proactive, flexible, and context-sensitive governance rooted in ethical foresight.
