| APrIGF 2025 Session Proposal Submission Form | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1 - Lead Organizer | |||||||||||||
| Contact Person | |||||||||||||
| Ms. Tayyaba Iftikhar | |||||||||||||
| Organization / Affiliation (Please state "Individual" if appropriate) * | |||||||||||||
| Pakistan Telecom Authority | |||||||||||||
| Designation | |||||||||||||
| Assistant Director | |||||||||||||
| Gender | |||||||||||||
| Female | |||||||||||||
| Economy of Residence | |||||||||||||
| Pakistan | |||||||||||||
| Stakeholder Group | |||||||||||||
| Government | |||||||||||||
| List Your Organizing Partners (if any) | |||||||||||||
| n/a | |||||||||||||
| Part 2 - Session Proposal | |||||||||||||
| Session Title | |||||||||||||
| From Oversight to Overlooked: Ethics in AI Governance | |||||||||||||
| Thematic Track of Your Session | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Description of Session Formats | |||||||||||||
| Panel Discussion (60 minutes) | |||||||||||||
| Where do you plan to organize your session? | |||||||||||||
| Onsite at the venue (with online moderator for questions and comments from remote participants) | |||||||||||||
| Specific Issues for Discussion | |||||||||||||
| This session will explore policy and governance questions around AI development and deployment in the Asia Pacific region, examining how ethical foresight and multistakeholder participation can shape more secure, trustworthy, and innovative digital ecosystems. Following are the aspects that we aim to discuss: 1. What are the key loopholes in existing AI regulations across APAC, and how can they be addressed to build a more resilient, harmonized digital ecosystem that promotes innovation while safeguarding public trust? 2. How can regional regulatory frameworks and multistakeholder engagement mechanisms proactively embed ethical foresight to ensure that AI governance remains adaptable to rapidly evolving technological and societal contexts? 3. How can cross-border regulatory cooperation help mitigate jurisdictional conflicts and enforcement challenges, particularly in holding digital platforms accountable across multiple countries? 4. Whose voices, values, and lived experiences are informing AI policymaking in the APAC region, and how can marginalized communities meaningfully participate in shaping ethical AI governance frameworks? These questions reflect the urgent need to reimagine governance systems that are regionally grounded yet globally aware, inclusive of diverse perspectives, and capable of building public trust. The session will engage a variety of actors/stakeholders across the Asia pacific region to assess current frameworks, identify regulatory blind spots, and develop recommendations for building a robust regulatory ecosystem. |
|||||||||||||
| Describe the Relevance of Your Session to APrIGF | |||||||||||||
| 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 responds directly to APrIGF’s overarching theme for this year and relates to the tracks of Innovation & Emerging Technologies and Security & Trust by exploring how to achieve ethical foresight and regulatory diligence without stifling innovation in APAC. 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. Global initiatives like the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) and UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI signal a growing consensus: proactive oversight is essential to preserving fundamental rights and building digital trust. Yet many regulatory frameworks in the Asia Pacific (current and upcoming) are struggling to keep pace with evolving ethical challenges, leaving gaps that can be exploited. This session will examine major AI governance approaches across Asia such as South Korea’s Framework Act on the Promotion of AI, Singapore’s AI Governance Framework and Model AI Governance Testing Framework, Japan’s AI Governance Guidelines, Pakistan’s National AI and Digital Policy Draft among others. We aim to identify strengths and weaknesses. Bringing together stakeholders from government, civil society, academia, and industry, the session will develop recommendations to embed ethics into the creation and deployment of AI policy. The expected outcomes: actionable insights for more accountable, inclusive, and trust-oriented digital governance in the region. |
|||||||||||||
| Methodology / Agenda (Please add rows by clicking "+" on the right) | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Moderators & Speakers Info (Please complete where possible) - (Required) | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Please explain the rationale for choosing each of the above contributors to the session. | |||||||||||||
| This panel offers regional, gender, and sectoral diversity essential for a multistakeholder dialogue on AI governance in the Asia Pacific. | |||||||||||||
| If you need assistance to find a suitable speaker to contribute to your session, or an onsite facilitator for your online-only session, please specify your request with details of what you are looking for. | |||||||||||||
| Speakers have been confirmed. No specific support regarding this is required at this stage. | |||||||||||||
| Please declare if you have any potential conflict of interest with the Program Committee 2025. | |||||||||||||
| Yes | |||||||||||||
| If yes, please detail the person and his/her level of engagement on your session proposal. (e.g. 1 or more of the PC members are co-hosting/moderating/speaking at the session) | |||||||||||||
| I am a PC member and I am moderating the session. | |||||||||||||
| Are you or other session contributors planning to apply for the APrIGF Fellowship Program 2025? | |||||||||||||
| Yes | |||||||||||||
| Upon evaluation by the Program Committee, your session proposal may only be selected under the condition that you will accept the suggestion of merging with another proposal with similar topics. Please state your preference below: | |||||||||||||
| Yes, I am willing to work with another session proposer on a suggested merger. | |||||||||||||
| APrIGF offers live transcript in English for all sessions. Do you need any other translation support or any disability related requests for your session? APrIGF makes every effort to be a fully inclusive and accessible event, and will do the best to fulfill your needs. | |||||||||||||
| No. | |||||||||||||
| Brief Summary of Your Session | |||||||||||||
| The discussion emphasized that AI governance must be adaptive, inclusive, and regionally coordinated. The speakers highlighted Singapore’s leadership in testing frameworks and urged cross-border cooperation to build interoperable standards, shared observatories, and regional fellowships. The speakers also stressed that localized approaches—including linguistic and cultural adaptation—are key to effective and ethical AI governance. The discussion also focused on inclusivity and democratization, warning against narratives that serve corporate or political interests. The speakers called for systemic participation of marginalized groups through citizen juries, digital civic platforms, and community co-design. An ideal framework - as per the discussion - centers on proactive ethics, simplicity, and positive incentives for responsible innovation. The panel also urged diversifying moral foundations beyond Western traditions and translating AI ethics into local languages to ensure broader understanding and application. |
|||||||||||||
| Substantive Summary of the Key Issues Raised and the Discussion | |||||||||||||
| The discussion focused on how AI governance can become more inclusive, contextually grounded, and regionally coherent across the Asia-Pacific and other regions. Speakers agreed that while global frameworks exist, effective governance depends on local adaptation, collaboration, and capacity-building. The speakers underscored Singapore’s leadership in AI testing frameworks and its convening potential for interoperable regional standards through ASEAN . The panel emphasized multi-level governance, cross-border collaboration, and the need to adapt global standards—such as the Council of Europe’s HUDERIA and UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI—to regional realities through localized values, implementation pilots, and cultural contextualization. Speaker also proposed establishing regional observatories, fellowships, and policy sandboxes to institutionalize ethical governance and mutual learning. Speakers also stressed the importance of embedding rights by design, integrating ethical foresight, transparency, and red-line principles directly into national AI strategies and public procurement processes. This ensures that human rights and accountability are operationalized through practical, measurable tools rather than abstract commitments. Building on this, the panel further examined power asymmetries and exclusion in AI policymaking, highlighting how prevailing narratives often privilege state or corporate interests over community needs. The speakers advocated for structural inclusion by engaging marginalized voices—such as women, youth, rural communities, and indigenous groups—through citizen juries, digital civic platforms, and community-led co-design models. On a question regarding proposed framework for ethical AI governance, speaker emphasized three pillars: - Proactive Ethics – embedding accountability, dignity, and redress mechanisms at every stage of AI design and deployment. - Simplicity by Design – ensuring clarity, accessibility, and agility in ethical frameworks for both developers and regulators. - Positive Incentives – encouraging responsible innovation by rewarding transparency and ethics-by-design practices. The panel also called for regional capacity networks that link civil servants, educators, and regulators across borders to share methodologies, frameworks, and tools. These networks should pair technical training with ethical and human-rights literacy, enabling institutions to act on principles, not merely cite them. Finally, the discussion critiqued the Western-centric bias in global AI ethics and urged the inclusion of non-Western moral philosophies (such as Ubuntu, Shintoism, and Confucianism) alongside translation and localization of ethics materials. |
|||||||||||||
| Conclusions and Suggestions of Way Forward | |||||||||||||
| The discussion converged on the need for context-aware, human-centered, and adaptive AI governance frameworks that balance innovation with accountability. Participants agreed that the next phase of global AI governance should focus on operationalizing ethics, not just articulating it. Key conclusions included: Localization of global norms: Global frameworks like UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI and the Council of Europe’s HUDERIA should be adapted to regional realities through participatory design, cultural contextualization, and policy pilots. Embedding ethics and rights by design: Governments should integrate ethical foresight, transparency, and risk mitigation tools directly into AI strategies, public procurement, and data governance systems. Institutional capacity-building: There is a need to establish regional capacity networks connecting civil servants, regulators, and educators across borders to share practical methodologies and tools. Inclusive multi-stakeholder processes: Policymaking should systematically include marginalized and underrepresented voices, ensuring diversity in deliberation and outcomes. Incentive-based frameworks: Regulation should reward responsible innovation through recognition, funding, or compliance credits—encouraging a culture of proactive ethics rather than reactive penalties. Bridging epistemic divides: AI ethics discourse should move beyond Western paradigms by incorporating indigenous and Eastern philosophies and by promoting linguistic accessibility in ethical resources and standards. Way forward: Participants recommended building regional observatories, ethical sandboxes, and fellowship programs to foster ongoing dialogue and experimentation. Cross-border cooperation among ASEAN, and African counterparts can strengthen interoperability and mutual learning. |
|||||||||||||
| Number of Attendees (Please fill in numbers) | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Gender Balance in Moderators/Speakers (Please fill in numbers) | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| How were gender perspectives, equality, inclusion or empowerment discussed? Please provide details and context. | |||||||||||||
| The discussion recognized that AI systems and governance structures often reflect existing social hierarchies and gendered biases, reinforcing exclusion rather than dismantling it. Speakers emphasized that inclusion must be designed into the governance process itself, not treated as an afterthought or separate track. Building regional networks and mentorship pathways was seen as essential for sustained inclusion, helping women and marginalized actors move from token participation to agenda-setting roles in digital governance. |
|||||||||||||
| Consent | |||||||||||||
 I agree that my data can be submitted to forms.for.asia and processed by APrIGF organizers for the program selection of APrIGF 2025. |
|||||||||||||