A Proposal for

Global AI Regulation
Professor William Webb | CTO Access Partnership

accesspartnership.com
Why
regulate AI?
AI has the potential to deliver term harms remain unclear. The
more benefits to humanity than global, far-reaching nature of this
any new technology in the last technology underlines this threat.
century. This benefit is matched
by great potential harms. Unusually for such a fast-moving
area, there is near-universal
The challenges of regulating AI agreement that some sort of
are well-documented: it is a fast- regulation is needed, and indeed
moving field in which the long- is critical.

1 - A Global
Proposal
AI for
Regulation
Global AIProposal
Regulation
| Professor
| Professor
William
William
Webb
Webb accesspartnership.com
01
Current
regulatory
proposals
Regulators, policy bodies, and
companies have responded to this
clear need with a flurry of proposals to
either regulate AI or build the evidence
base to do so. However, the quality of
these proposals varies considerably.
Others, meanwhile, are considering
alternative approaches, such as
voluntary ethical frameworks.

Europe

The most concrete is the EU’s AI Act. This
has been many years in development and is
now in the advanced stages of approval. It is
detailed (over 100 pages in total) and includes
enforcement mechanisms and more. As the
first comprehensive piece of legislation in
the field, it has the potential, as with GDPR
regulation, to become the de facto global AI
regulation.
While other countries have varying degrees
of regulation and frameworks, they are
developing at such a pace that any policy is
likely to be outdated soon after its completion.
But there has been much comment on the
EU’s AI Act since there is much to criticise,
not least from a distance: the EU’s Act was
developed by well-informed teams using a
well-developed process. It is not clear that
anyone else following the same approach
would come up with anything materially
better. Nor is it likely that tweaking will
overcome the valid criticisms raised. Arguably,
what the AI Act demonstrates is that the
current regulatory process is not the right
one to regulate AI. Mostly, this is because it
is too slow – AI changes far faster than the
regulators can draft the laws. But also, in a
highly uncertain area, specific evidence-based
regulation is unlikely to work well.
Any regulatory approach to AI, at least
in its current rapidly changing and
highly unpredictable state, should be:
Global, since AI by its nature
cannot be constrained to
any country.
Responsive, such that it can
change quickly as harms
become apparent.
Built on principles, or ethics,
that provide guidance for
those working on AI and
enable even some degree of
self-regulation.
Each of these are very different from current
approach, which tends to be national, slow-
moving, and specific. It is unlikely that these
objectives will be delivered through the
existing bodies and processes (even the
shortest international standards reconciliation
process is a years-long affair). Just as AI has
led to a dramatic change in many industries,
it needs to lead to a dramatic change in
regulators and regulatory processes.

accesspartnership.com A Proposal for Global AI Regulation | Professor William Webb -2

02
Globality
AI is a global development.
Companies leading the way have
global reach and AI systems can be
accessed from almost anywhere in
the world. AI would be much better
regulated on a global basis.
Global regulation has often been
unsuccessful or very slow and
compromised. But this need not be the
case with AI regulation. This is primarily
because there is no absolute need to
have all countries involved. As long as the
majority of countries where the major users
of AI reside are part of the initiative, then it
is highly likely that the major suppliers will
adhere to the regulation in all countries that
they supply to. This is akin to adherence
to the EU’s GDPR regulation globally, even
where it does not apply, primarily because
it is simpler for companies to work to one
regulatory standard.
Flexible membership
It may also be manageable to have a few
countries, for example China, outside of the
regulatory framework. Since the origin of AI
tools can normally be ascertained, those using
AI can avoid non-certified systems and users
look for compliance markings on products.
While not ideal, use of non-certified AI systems
in countries that have not subscribed to the
global regulation may be identifiable and
manageable. The more countries involved the
better, but this ability to move ahead with only
a subset of countries should mean that there
is less blocking of progress from those with
differing interests, or worse a desire to subvert.
Use the force
In order to set up the new framework quickly
it may be best to work within the existing
3 - A Proposal for Global AI Regulation | Professor William Webb
national regulatory structure. Rather than
a national regulator or government seeding
powers to the global AI regulator they could,
instead, commit to enact into national law
or regulation the global regulations. This is
how some EU regulation works – national
governments agree to enact it as national
law. Similarly, compliance verification and
penalties could also work nationally but
as part of an agreed global process – for
example, one country might issue a fine to
a transgressor that had been agreed at a
global level.
A global regulator should not be required to
have a representative from each country that
signs up to it. This would be unwieldy and
raise the risk of some countries blocking or
compromising progress. Instead, it should
be able to select its own panel of experts,
chosen for their capabilities rather than
nationality. It should be fully funded from the
member countries.
Action first
Of course, none of this is easy. Countries
will not want to write a “blank cheque”
to a new body with no track record and
little in the way of checks and safeguards.
Selecting a panel of experts is likely to lead
to nationalistic behaviours. And that’s before
even considering how to regulate AI, a topic
of huge debate and contention. But while not
easy, it is possible, and some solutions are
discussed below. And it is critically needed.
accesspartnership.com
03
Rapid reaction
Regulators generally move slowly. For example,
a spectrum auction, which is a well-known and
widely used piece of regulation, can often take
many years to design and run.
Regulators fear legal challenges, consult often,
assemble large bodies of evidence to de-risk,
and pause whenever issues emerge. Equally,
regulators can move fast; for example in the case
of the Covid vaccine, where the benefits were
so great that normal processes were modified
and approaches that monitored and changed
regulation rapidly were put in place.
In the case of AI regulation, the risks of moving
too quickly are relatively low and likely to be
slowing the innovation in AI. Conversely, the risks
of moving too slowly could be significant harms
that are hard to address once widely embedded.
To be responsive on timescales of months, not
years, AI regulators need:
1.1 The ability to spot trends or even predict
harms.
2
2. A framework that allows regulation to be
produced without evidence or consultation.
In respect of point 1, there are many ways to
spot trends:
• Regulators could be much more tightly
coupled to research activities, such as
national AI laboratories, with staff circulating
between them and regular briefings across
the research-regulatory divide. Regulators can
even shape research into areas of concern or
uncertainty.
• Regulators could have a well-resourced
monitoring function that closely monitors AI
use and actively probes for possible harms;
for example, working with organisations on
beta-versions of systems and using a form
of “penetration testing” that seeks possible
issues. This is better done globally with the
cost shared across all regulators.
accesspartnership.com
• Use of the best forecasters in the world
to predict what might happen, and tools
such as backcasting, where the routes to
possible predicted harms can be better
understood. Again, this is better done
globally.
While adopting these does not sound too
difficult, it will require different types of staff
than currently reside in most regulators,
as well as cultural change in some cases.
Recruitment is often a slow process, so use of
contractors, consultants, or other flexible ways
to rapidly gain access to the world’s leading
thinkers might be needed.
In respect of point 2 – call it flash rulemaking
– another challenge is the framework that
regulators work under, which is typically a legal
Act that sets out the duties, objectives, and
mode of operation of the regulator. Often, this
framework requires evidence-based regulation
and formal consultation. These are excellent
approaches – but only in slow-moving areas. A
change to the legal framework may be needed
to allow the regulator to adopt a very different
approach, where regulation is quickly drafted
by a group of experts and then immediately
put into force, but with frequent review
and potential update so that any errors or
unexpected outcomes can be dealt with.
The problem is that changes to legal
frameworks are themselves based on
evidence-led assessment and consultation.
Consequently, changing the framework
might take too long. It may require some
form of derogation, or similar, that can allow
the regulator to operate under temporary
exceptions while the slower processes unfold.
Quite what will work will likely differ from
country to country. If a global regulator is
established, as discussed above, then countries
may need to do relatively little other than be
able to incorporate the global regulation into
their national framework. But without this, they
may need to make harder changes.
A Proposal for Global AI Regulation | Professor William Webb -4
04
Principles-led
In a fast-moving area, it is rarely
possible to have highly specific
regulation. It tends to become
outdated, or stakeholders quickly
find ways around it.

A different approach is to set out, at a

high level, what the regulation aims to These issues are nearly insurmountable,
achieve, such as fairness for all, societal but they do not mean that there is no
benefits, inclusiveness, security, and the role for such frameworks. They bring
ability to control and modify. Many such two potential benefits:
frameworks for AI have already been
developed and appear well thought out
They can be used to signal
and appropriate.
likely future regulation, reducing
the uncertainty that comes
The challenge is how to apply and
from the responsive regulation
enforce such frameworks. At present,
discussed above. While
they are often proposed as voluntary
stakeholders may not know
codes that companies developing AI
exactly what regulation will be
might wish to adopt. That is laudable,
enacted, they can have a good
but hardly sufficient for regulatory
guess at what might be coming
purposes.
and some expectation that if
they adhere to the framework,
As principles-led frameworks are, by
they will not be heavily
their nature, high-level, they are very
impacted by new regulation.
difficult to enforce. How can it be shown
that a company carefully considered all
aspects of fairness in designing their They may have some impact
system? Or that the resulting system is – many companies will
fair when fairness is such a subjective take note and change their
concept? How would you prosecute behaviours. So they can lessen
a company that appeared not to have harms that might result. On
complied with the ethical code? Any their own, they are insufficient.
legal challenge would seem problematic However, when coupled with a
when there is so much subjectivity responsive and more specific
involved. These problems have meant regulation, they can form
that ethical codes have rarely been part part of a better regulatory
of a regulator’s toolkit. approach.

5 - A Proposal for Global AI Regulation | Professor William Webb accesspartnership.com

05
Expert-led
Regulators tend to be generalists
who then consult the experts as
needed as they develop regulation.
For example, they might talk to
mobile network designers when
considering spectrum auctions
to ensure that the auctions are
technically sound.

This approach has worked in the past

because the sectors being regulated are
relatively slow-moving and the regulators
can often recruit a few individuals with
expert knowledge to work on internal teams.

This is not the case with AI, which is moving

much faster than sectors like mobile
communications. Experts are concentrated
in the large companies developing AI and
unlikely to join regulators. Prior regulation, or
examples from other countries, hardly exists.

This leads to a huge asymmetry of

knowledge between those developing AI
and those trying to regulate it, making
good regulation extremely challenging. The
solution is to use panels of experts, ideally
globally, who have an equal role in creating
regulation, not just an input.

These experts need to be co-

opted from leading companies,
universities, research bodies,
and elsewhere. They clearly need
to understand AI, but experts
on the impact of AI, such as
sociologists, psychologists, and
more, are also needed.

accesspartnership.com A Proposal
A Globalfor
AI Global
Regulation
AI Regulation
Proposal | Professor William Webb -6
06
What will the
regulation
look like?
This paper has avoided saying
much about what the actual AI
regulation might look like. This
is broadly because it is too early
to do so in many areas. However,
some harms are already apparent,
and the form of likely regulation is
emerging, for example:
Disinformation and
fake news:
This is a very challenging problem
requiring multiple tools spread across
many actors, such as regulation that
makes generation of disinformation
illegal and requires sites that host such
information to actively search for and
remove it. Fact-checking bodies could
be set up to search for and flag such
information.
Copyright abuse:
This extends from AI using written material,
music, and art to using people’s voice or
appearance and more. A global agreement
on a fair recompense for materials used
in AI training is needed coupled with a
requirement for those using AI models to
pay appropriate fees.
7 - A Proposal for Global AI Regulation | Professor William Webb
Bias and
discrimination:
Given that biases are often incorporated
unwittingly, the approach here might
require extensive testing before AI is used
in particular applications. In this case, it
would be the responsibility of those using
the AI to ensure that it was tested for
biases in their intended use. Guidance on
selection of training data might also help
those training models.
Privacy:
If personal data is incorporated into training
models, it might emerge into public or
commercial spheres in unanticipated ways.
Here, the best approach is likely to require
those training models to exclude personal
data. However, there are many grey areas
that will need careful consideration.
accesspartnership.com
 There are future potential harms that have been postulated but where
it is less clear what the optimal form of regulation is, such as:

Anti-competitive behaviour, Risks in robotic or autonomous

should the provision of key AI devices that use AI to decide
models, or other enablers, be on actions, such as AI-enabled
concentrated in a small number autonomous cars.
of players.

Aggressive loss of employment Criminal behaviour or other

leading to social risks. highly dangerous outcomes.

Risks that AI designed for military Existential risks, should AI “get

purposes “escapes” into the wider out of control” and pursue goals
world and leads to enhanced detrimental to humanity.
criminal behaviour or other highly
dangerous outcomes.

Work needs to start on these urgently to explore what best can be done.

These are not intended to be comprehensive lists and much remains to be determined – hence
the need for responsive action.

accesspartnership.com A Proposal for Global AI Regulation | Professor William Webb -8

07
How to bring
about better AI
regulation
If the preferred approach is a new
global regulator, this should also
embrace responsiveness and
principles-led regulation.
To achieve this, someone needs to take the
initiative to make it happen, ideally a high-
ranking politician who can persuade others
across multiple countries to consider a
global regulator. This then allows suitable
individuals (e.g., senior civil servants or
regulators) from each country to convene for
more detailed discussions leading to terms
of reference and then the appointment of
the key individuals needed to run the global
regulator.
But, as noted above, persuading multiple
countries to “write a blank cheque” to a
new, unproven regulator is a very big ask,
and perhaps too challenging for risk-averse
regulators. Instead incremental approaches
could be adopted. Countries could give
approval in principle but with opt-out
options in the first year, with increasing
commitment as the global regulator proves
its worth (or the ability to pull out if the
global regulator does not achieve its goals).
The key will be to show a path towards
becoming the global regulator, rather than
yet another advisory body.
If establishing a global regulator fails,
countries will need to go it alone or work in
regional groups. This means each country
addressing the challenges listed above of
setting up a new way of delivering regulation.
That likely requires leadership from the
government and the regulator.
9 - A Proposal for Global AI Regulation | Professor William Webb
What about other stakeholders who will
understandably want to influence and
accelerate the process? Historically,
stakeholders often slow down regulatory
processes by their actions, so care is
needed here. Work by industry bodies,
research organisations, or other non-
commercial entities can be helpful if it
provides regulators with ready-made
material to form regulations or delivers
what can be regarded as evidence.
This might be in the form of voluntary,
principles-led frameworks. Major
stakeholders all asking for global regulation
can also provide governments with the
signals that they need to move in that
direction. Setting up forecasting panels and
similar can provide a ready-made resource
that regulators can then adopt more quickly
than establishing their own. But demanding
that regulators adopt certain materials is
likely to be less than helpful and regulators
will, understandably, be suspicious of
materials generated from stakeholders who
stand to make commercial gain.
Above all, a clear, consistent
message that responsive global AI
regulation is needed is most likely
to result in the governmental action
essential to bringing it about.
accesspartnership.com
Work with us
Founded in 1999, Access Partnership is a global policy consulting
firm with integrated expertise across technology, government affairs,
multilateral organisations, and sustainability.
William Webb
Chief Technology Officer
william.webb@accesspartnership.com
William oversees the
development and dissemination
of technology for our clients
and vendors, bringing over
thirty years’ experience in
technological communications.
accesspartnership.com
Meet William
As CTO, William oversees the
development and dissemination of
technology for our clients and vendors,
bringing over thirty years’ experience
in technological communications. He
manages a team of technical experts
and provides technical support across
the entire portfolio of Access’s activities.
He also provides direct consulting,
including expert witness services, to
mobile operators undergoing mergers or
legal disputes around the world.
A previous Director of Technology at
OfCom for over seven years, William was
also the Director of Corporate Strategy
for Motorola, based in Chicago, USA,
and moved on to become one of the
founding directors of Neul, holding the
role of CTO, where he was responsible
for the overall technical design of an
innovative new wireless technology,
before being sold to Huawei in 2014.
Latterly, he became CEO at Weightless
SIG, which harmonised the technology
as a global standard.
A Proposal for Global AI Regulation | Professor William Webb - 10
North America Europe

Washington DC London Brussels

Suite 512 4th Floor, The Tower Square de Meeûs 37
1730 Rhode Island Ave N.W. 65 Buckingham Gate 4th Floor
Washington DC 20036 London, SW1E 6AS B-1000 Brussels
USA UK Belgium

Tel: +1 202 503 1570 Tel: +44 (0) 20 8600 0630 Tel: +32 (0)2 791 79 50
washingtondc@accesspartnership.com london@accesspartnership.com brussels@accesspartnership.com

Middle East Africa Asia-Pacific

Abu Dhabi Johannesburg Singapore

Al Wahda City Tower, 20th Floor
Hazaa Bin Zayed The First Street
PO Box 127432
Abu Dhabi, UAE
Tel: +971 2 815 7811
abudhabi@accesspartnership.com
119 Witch-Hazel Avenue
Highveld Technopark
Johannesburg
Gauteng, South Africa
Tel: +27 72 324 8821
Asia Square, Tower 2#11-0112 Marina
ViewSingapore 018961
Tel: +65 8323 7855
singapore@accesspartnership.com