DG Connect proposed the AI Act. Rauh’s (2019) study of 2,200 proposals for regulations and directives that the Commission tabled between 1994 and 2016 suggests DG Connect proposals have a 40-55% chance that the adopted law equals what the Commission has originally proposed. Does your team have any internal estimates of how likely the final law will equal the original proposal? Or perhaps more importantly, how likely the sections of the original proposal that you like will remain intact?
Given the importance of the Council and qualified majority voting do you have a sense of how many countries * their percent of the EU population support/oppose the amendments to the AI Act that you prefer (you mention France & Finland above)?
Do you only focus on the EU level (Commission, Parliament, Councils) or do you also work directly at the EU member state level (if so which ones and why)?
How did you decide which channels of influence to pursue? You mention above submitting feedback to the European Commission, why do you think your submission will be taken seriously? How do you rate the various channels for engaging with the Commission: stakeholder conferences, DG meetings, online consultations (restricted/open)?
Which of the three major institutions (Commission, Parliament, Councils) have you found most receptive to your preferred policies?
Thank you, a lot of great questions. In response to question (3), some of our work focuses on EU member states as well. Because we are a small team, our ability to cover many member states is limited, but hopefully, with the new hire we can do a lot more on this front as well. If you know anybody suitable, please let us know. For example, we have engaged with Sweden, Estonia, Belgium, Netherlands, France, and a few other countries. Right now, the Presidency of the Council of the EU is held by France, next up are Czechia and Sweden, so work at the member state level in these countries is definitely important.
DG Connect proposed the AI Act. Rauh’s (2019) study of 2,200 proposals for regulations and directives that the Commission tabled between 1994 and 2016 suggests DG Connect proposals have a 40-55% chance that the adopted law equals what the Commission has originally proposed.
Does your team have any internal estimates of how likely the final law will equal the original proposal? Or perhaps more importantly, how likely the sections of the original proposal that you like will remain intact?
Given the importance of the Council and qualified majority voting do you have a sense of how many countries * their percent of the EU population support/oppose the amendments to the AI Act that you prefer (you mention France & Finland above)?
Do you only focus on the EU level (Commission, Parliament, Councils) or do you also work directly at the EU member state level (if so which ones and why)?
How did you decide which channels of influence to pursue? You mention above submitting feedback to the European Commission, why do you think your submission will be taken seriously? How do you rate the various channels for engaging with the Commission: stakeholder conferences, DG meetings, online consultations (restricted/open)?
Which of the three major institutions (Commission, Parliament, Councils) have you found most receptive to your preferred policies?
Thank you, a lot of great questions. In response to question (3), some of our work focuses on EU member states as well. Because we are a small team, our ability to cover many member states is limited, but hopefully, with the new hire we can do a lot more on this front as well. If you know anybody suitable, please let us know. For example, we have engaged with Sweden, Estonia, Belgium, Netherlands, France, and a few other countries. Right now, the Presidency of the Council of the EU is held by France, next up are Czechia and Sweden, so work at the member state level in these countries is definitely important.
Hello Neil, thank you for these questions—I have sent you a DM with some additional answers.