How this community organizes as it grows
One question, asked across every region and every layer of the AI value chain: how do we bound what AI systems are allowed to do, keep an accountable human in the loop, and prove after the fact what happened? This page is the proposed operating model for the body that answers it — a governance matrix, not a membership list. It is open for comment, and none of it is claimed to be operational until it is.
What exists and what doesn't — read this first. This is a proposed model for a body that does not yet exist as an operating institution. It has no members, no chairs, no endorsements, and no affiliations today; every seat, chair, and chamber is open. It is not a government entity or intergovernmental organization, and it is not affiliated with the UN, the WEF, GPAI, or the OECD. The standard it stewards is an open draft that complements — does not replace — ISO 10218:2025, ISO 13482, the EU Machinery Regulation 2023/1230, the EU AI Act, and ISO/IEC 42001. The full body's formal name is provisional, to be ratified by the community at Session 1; this page says "the Forum" generically.
Categories, not companies. No organization is named anywhere in this model unless it has actually, verifiably joined. Layers of the value chain are described by category — "chip and cloud providers," "frontier-model labs" — never by naming firms that haven't consented. This is deliberate and permanent.
The organizing idea — two axes, plus the committees that cut across
AI governance fails when it's organized on one axis. Geography-only bodies miss the cross-border technical stack; industry-only bodies miss regional law and the public interest. The Forum is organized on both at once:
Each cell = a region × a layer. "Data sovereignty in the EU." "Compute safety limits in a US state." "Patrol-robot force envelopes in one city." The matrix is where the standard meets deployment reality — Chapters (the regional AI Governors: every US state, province, EU member, and country, every seat open) bring the place; Chambers bring the layer.
The Chambers — the horizontal axis
One standing council per layer of the AI stack. Every chair is open; participants are described by category only. Public-interest chambers (C7–C9) are first-class, voting chambers — on safety-critical decisions the corporate chambers cannot outvote them.
| # | Chamber | Who sits there (categories) | Stake in the standard | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Compute & Infrastructure | Chip makers · cloud & HPC providers · robotics-hardware manufacturers | Where force and compute limits are physically enforced (R5) | Proposed · chair open |
| C2 | Networking & Connectivity | Network-equipment vendors · telecoms | Real-time control; comms-loss fail-safe (R2) | Proposed · chair open |
| C3 | Data & Storage | Data-platform & storage providers · open-source data projects | Tamper-evident logs (R6); data sovereignty | Proposed · chair open |
| C4 | Foundation Models & AI Labs | Frontier-model labs · open-model labs and communities | The model requests; the safety layer permits (R5) | Proposed · chair open |
| C5 | Applications & Domains | Integrators · robot OEMs · platforms in health, mobility, logistics, commerce, public safety | Declared force envelopes per deployment (R7) | Forming |
| C6 | Governance, Compliance & Security | GRC & AI-assurance vendors · auditors — includes Cognita GRC, disclosed | Attestation, audit, conformance, the Governance API | Forming |
| C7 | Public Authorities & Regulators | Regulators · standards-body members · public-safety agencies | Alignment with law; legitimacy | Proposed · chair open |
| C8 | Research & Academia | Universities · safety institutes · independent researchers | Evidence; red-teams the standard | Proposed · chair open |
| C9 | Civil Society & Public Interest | NGOs · ethics organizations · labor · consumer groups | Anti-capture; public safety first | Proposed · chair open |
"Forming" means the Secretariat has committed to convene the chamber's first session — not that it has members. C6 is Cognita's own layer, and is disclosed as such.
Governance bodies
All Governors, Chamber participants, and Committee members. Ratifies standards, seats chairs, sets direction by rough consensus. First convening = Session 1 (PAIG-0).
Small, elected, rotating, term-limited executive drawn from Regional Groups, Chamber Chairs, Committee Chairs, and the Secretariat. At launch: an interim council convened by the Secretariat, explicitly labeled interim, handing off to elected seats as the body forms.
Technical — live today: the PAIG working groups and the open RFC. Scientific (evidence, red-teaming) · Policy & Regulatory (maps the standard to law) · Ethics & Independence (conflict-of-interest, anti-capture; may withhold or withdraw designations) — proposed, with Ethics deliberately first in line after Technical.
Hosts the repository and site, coordinates cadence, publishes decisions, maintains the register. Non-voting on standards content beyond its own C6 seat. Subject to the handoff timeline below.
Cadence — the rhythm that makes it a body
| Tier | Rhythm | What happens | Deliverable | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working calls | Monthly · virtual · open | Committee & Chamber sessions; drafts move | Public minutes + updated drafts | Starts when first participants are seated |
| Forum Review | Quarterly · virtual | Cross-axis checkpoint; RFC status; Governor confirmations | Public quarterly note + versioned cut | v1 cadence · first follows Session 1 |
| Regional & Chamber summits | Semester · hybrid | Regional Groups and Chambers synthesize positions | Position papers → the standards | Proposed |
| The Annual Forum | Yearly · flagship | Plenary ratifies the year's release; elects Council seats | Ratified version + annual report | Proposed · v1 = a modest virtual convening |
No meeting is announced until it is real. Every scheduled convening appears in the repository and the site's Latest strip first.
Independence, funding & anti-capture
A GRC company convening a forum that includes competing vendors and the labs it might sell to has obvious capture exposure. This body deserves to exist only if it is structurally resistant to the critiques fairly leveled at elite convening bodies — pay-to-play access, closed doors, dialogue without teeth. The commitments, in the design itself:
- No pay-to-play — ever. Seats, chairs, votes, and standards influence are earned by contribution and cannot be bought. There are no membership tiers.
- Funding firewall. If sponsorship ever funds the Secretariat, sponsors receive acknowledgment, not influence; all funding sources published. At launch, the Secretariat is a disclosed Cognita subsidy.
- Multi-stakeholder majority. Corporate chambers (C1–C6) cannot outvote public-interest chambers (C7–C9) on safety-critical decisions.
- An Ethics & Independence Committee with teeth — mandatory conflict disclosure for every chair and council member; power to withhold or withdraw designations; a standing mandate to flag capture publicly.
- Radical transparency. Open repository, public minutes, published decisions and rationales, open licenses. No closed-door track.
- The steward handoff is a timeline, not a promise. Interim Secretariat-convened leadership at launch → elected chairs as they are seated → an elected Steering Council and rotating Forum Chair by the first Annual Forum → Cognita steps back to the disclosed Secretariat + C6 role. Founder control is a phase, not the design.
The claim this model makes is about principles, not scale: open (earned-in, not invite-only), transparent (public process), teeth-bearing (standards and reference code, not only reports), and capture-resistant.
Phasing — what is real, phase by phase
The four PAIG drafts and the open RFC (Technical Committee, live) · the Wall of Governors with every regional seat open · two founding chambers (C5, C6) forming · Cognita as disclosed interim Secretariat · the monthly Technical call + quarterly checkpoint as the only cadence commitments · one modest inaugural virtual convening (Session 1). Nothing is shown as filled unless a real person has committed.
Real chamber and committee chairs seated as volunteers step up · first Regional Group summits · first confirmed Governors credited (never faked) · first Annual Forum (virtual) · first ratified release · first elected seats.
Broader chamber coverage · hybrid Annual Forum · formal governance handoff to the elected Steering Council · the funding firewall formalized · a neutral legal entity (non-profit / foundation) if scale warrants.
Comment on this model
The operating model is PAIG-4, open for comment like every other document here. The open questions: the nine-chamber taxonomy, the voting weights between corporate and public-interest chambers, the handoff milestones, the (provisional) name, and whether Ethics & Independence should seat before the first chamber chairs.