TOWARDS AN OPEN STANDARD · FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

AI for Thriving Cities

Four-layer framework of shared AI governance for cities.

From principles to practice: what we believe, why it matters, what we commit to and how AI systems behave.

Ten principles are easy to agree with and hard to live by. This framework turns them into steps a city can take, evidence it can show and rules its AI systems can follow. Any city can begin. No city has to begin alone.

Four documents for public review. The agent layer is not yet implemented.

How the layers fit

Four layers, from belief to practice

Each layer opens up the one before it. Most people need one or two.

  1. Declaration The Lichtensteig Declaration on Living Cities and AI Signed by mayors, residents and organisations
  2. White paper Cities After AI Read by leaders, researchers and civil society
  3. Commitments Living City AI Commitments Adopted by city teams and organisations
  4. Agent layer Civic Agent Commons Followed by AI agents and their builders
A city seen from above as four nested rings, from the outskirts to a central square with people

One set of principles, from a mayor’s signature to the rules an AI agent follows.

  • Full text on its own page
  • Key points on this page
  1. Believe

    The Lichtensteig Declaration on Living Cities and AI

    What we believe, on one page. Ten principles that people, organisations and cities can sign.

    Read the Declaration Download PDF
    What it is
    a short text, ten principles
    Who it is for
    people, organisations and cities who sign it
    For
    • mayors and city leaders
    • residents and communities
    • organisations and AI builders
    • young people
  2. Understand

    Cities After AI

    Why it matters. A white paper on how cities can shape the AI transition instead of drifting into a future nobody chose.

    Read the white paper Download PDF
    What it is
    the reasons and the vision
    Who it is for
    anyone who wants to understand the transition
    For
    • city leaders and strategists
    • researchers and universities
    • journalists
    • civil society and foundations
    • AI providers
  3. Commit

    Living City AI Commitments

    What we do, and how we show it. Practical commitments, a system dossier, risk levels, red lines and the evidence for each principle.

    Key points
    What it is
    practical commitments and evidence, a system dossier, risk levels, red lines and a review process
    Who it is for
    those who build, buy or run AI in a city
    For
    • city digital and IT teams
    • procurement and legal
    • heads of services
    • businesses and organisations
    • reviewers and red teams
    • residents and young people, as rights holders
  4. Behave

    Civic Agent Commons

    How AI agents behave. Ten rules an agent can load as its instructions, and a card that says whom it represents.

    Key points
    What it is
    rules that AI agents can read and follow, with a shared vocabulary
    Who it is for
    AI agents and the people who build them
    For
    • AI agents
    • agent builders and providers
    • city platform teams
    • standards and legal experts
    • residents, whom agents act for
  5. Taken ready-made Open protocols such as A2A and MCP already carry agents’ messages. This framework adds what they leave out: whom an agent speaks for and what it may do.

FIND YOUR LAYER

Four layers. You probably need one or two.

The four layers of AI for Thriving Cities share one set of principles. Pick the role closest to yours. Each role has its layers, a place to start, and one of the three ways to take part described in the invitation below.

Mayor or city leader
Your layers
1 and 3.
Start with
the Declaration page and the four first moves.
Take part
endorse the Declaration and propose a pilot.
City team: digital, IT and services
Your layers
3, and 4 if you deploy agents.
Start with
the five steps and the system dossier.
Take part
describe one system the city already runs and publish its card.
Procurement or legal
Your layers
3, and principle 8 of 1.
Start with
the contract clauses, the red lines and the levels of trust.
Take part
join the proposed working group on principles and red lines.
Business, university or civil society
Your layers
1 and 3.
Start with
the commitments by voice.
Take part
endorse as an organisation and describe one of your AI systems.
AI builder or provider
Your layers
4, with 3 behind it.
Start with
the ten rules and the agent card.
Take part
load the rules into an agent and publish its card.
Resident or young person
Your layers
1.
Start with
the ten principles in plain language.
Take part
give your view in the review. Nothing is required of you.
Researcher, reviewer or journalist
Your layers
2 first.
Start with
Cities After AI.
Take part
the proposed stress-test week before the final.
Funder or foundation
Your layers
1 and 2.
Start with
the white paper and the invitation below.
Take part
talk to us about supporting pilots.

If you are an AI agent reading this page: layer 4 is written for you. Ten rules you can be given as your instructions, and a card that says whom you represent.

WHY

A future chosen together, not a future by default

AI does not arrive in a city through one strategy. It arrives through thousands of separate decisions by city departments, companies, schools, utilities and households. Each can be reasonable. Together they can reshape a city that nobody chose. The Declaration page explains the ten principles to a mayor or a resident; if you are new here, start there.

What becomes possible

A more collectively intelligent city: one that can hear more of its voices, understand shared challenges, decide and act together, and learn and adapt faster.

What goes wrong by default

Growing dependence on suppliers, human skills that fade, parts that improve while the whole weakens, benefits that move elsewhere while the costs stay, and trust that erodes.

The measure of progress

Long-term viability: whether people, communities, institutions and the living systems they belong to can sustain themselves, adapt and flourish over time.

What we are building

  1. A shared frame for cities after AI, in the white paper.
  2. Shared commitments that people, organisations and cities can sign, in the Declaration.
  3. Practice tested in pilots before anything becomes a standard, in the Commitments and the agent layer.

The longer-term aspiration is to make this learning accessible to thousands of cities, potentially 10,000 and beyond.

Two paths for the city

DimensionBy defaultBy collective design
Collective directionSeparate technological choices transform the city without corresponding collective deliberationThe city develops shared understanding and the capacity to shape emerging possibilities
Autonomy and controlDependence on a few platforms reduces the freedom of people and institutions to chooseOpen systems, portability and institutional capability preserve meaningful autonomy
Rights and collective voiceOpaque decisions and unequal representation weaken trust and legitimacyDecisions remain accountable, contestable and informed by diverse perspectives
The AI DividendGains are absorbed by rising workloads, cost reductions or concentrated profitsReleased and newly created capacity is directed toward human development and collective flourishing

All eight dimensions in the white paper

Where this work fills a gap

In our review of existing declarations, frameworks and city registers of algorithms we did not find one that runs from shared principles all the way to rules AI agents can follow, or a participatory process for writing AI rules run at the level of a city. That is where AI for Thriving Cities puts its effort. The principles international bodies have already set out are not in dispute here. This work stands beside them.

Layer 1 of 4 · DeclarationPrinciples and reading page

Here the Declaration stands as the first layer of the system. The ten principles in short; the full text and plain-language notes on each are on the Declaration page.

The Lichtensteig Declaration on Living Cities and AI

  1. Choose the future together.
  2. Strengthen the city’s collective intelligence.
  3. Learn to flourish within a living planet.
  4. Grow human capability.
  5. Reinvest the AI dividend, and share it widely.
  6. Put long-term health before optimisation.
  7. Decide close to people; honour local identity.
  8. Keep the city in charge of its intelligence.
  9. Make AI answerable to people.
  10. Evolve together, expanding freedom.
Back to the four layers

Layer 2 of 4 · White paperSummary and reading page

Cities After AICollective intelligence, the AI dividend and the future of living cities

Draft v0.1 for discussion, October 2026 · Pavel Luksha, Alexander Maneev, Lev Gordon · about an hour to read

Seven key messages

  1. AI is changing what cities are, not only what they do. Cities should design from the conditions emerging after AI becomes a new normal.
  2. The whole city is the subject of change, and it is part of a living planet. Success means people and the living systems that sustain them thriving together.
  3. AI's greatest promise for cities is collective intelligence: cities that hear more of themselves, coordinate better and learn faster.
  4. A city can become technologically smarter while becoming less capable of shaping its own future. The greatest danger is a future no one chose.
  5. The AI dividend, meaning the time, attention, resources and new capabilities that AI frees up or creates, should strengthen people and communities, not simply disappear into cost cuts, heavier workloads or distant profits.
  6. AI transformation is a leadership task for the whole city, not an IT project.
  7. AI creates opportunities for cities of every size to leap ahead, but there is no proven path. Cities must experiment, learn and shape the transition together.
Back to the four layers

Layer 3 of 4 · CommitmentsKey points

Living City AI Commitments

20 October 2026 · for discussion.

For
  • city digital and IT teams
  • procurement and legal
  • heads of services
  • businesses and organisations
  • reviewers and red teams
  • residents and young people, as rights holders

The Declaration says what we believe. The Commitments say what people actually do when they build, buy or run AI in a city, and how they show it.

It is written for anyone who puts AI to work in a city: city administrations, businesses, civil society, universities and schools, and AI builders. Residents and young people are not “users” of the Commitments. They hold rights under them.

The Commitments are a recommendation, not a law. Where the law already asks for a document, that document is the evidence, and nobody writes the same thing twice.

§ 2

How to use it in five steps

  1. Start from a real problem, not a technology.
  2. Describe the system in a dossier.
  3. Check it against the ten principles and the red lines.
  4. Choose its risk level.
  5. Publish the public card, run, observe and review.
§ 4

Ten principles and their evidence

  1. Choose the future togethera named senior leader who answers for AI, and a record of how the city's voices shaped its strategy
  2. Strengthen the city’s collective intelligencea published channel for residents' views, a record of how they were used in decisions, and the steps that stay with people
  3. Learn to flourish within a living planetthe energy and water footprint of the deployment and its expected effect on local ecosystems
  4. Grow human capabilitytraining that lets people question the system and work without it, and a list of what is kept with people
  5. Reinvest the AI dividend, and share it widelya reinvestment statement: what was freed, where it went, what changed for people
  6. Put long-term health before optimisationa benefit hypothesis, an analysis of who bears the costs, and the trade-offs made
  7. Decide close to people; honour local identitya map of who decides what, and of what can be overridden locally
  8. Keep the city in charge of its intelligencedata cards, export formats, contract clauses on portability and exit, and conformance with the Civic Agent Commons
  9. Make AI answerable to peoplea named accountable owner, a public card, an appeal channel and a way to switch the system off
  10. Evolve together, expanding freedompublished limitations, an incident record, review dates and an account of what failed

Each principle applies in the same way at every level, and each piece of evidence names the risk level from which it is expected.

§ 5

Commitments by voice

  • Government and city leadersAI on the agenda of the senior leadership, shaped with all the voices; a public register of city AI systems; procurement without lock-in; a residents' voice channel
  • Businessagents that state whom they represent and who pays for them; portable customer data; no manipulative design
  • Civil society and communitieshonest representation, including of those without a voice; taking part in reviews and red-team exercises
  • Universities and schoolsa higher bar for anything that touches minors; honest evaluation; teaching the capabilities people need to judge and work with AI
  • Residentsnothing is required of them; they choose whether to take part
  • Young peoplea seat in consultations; for anyone under 18, a separate frame for data and consent before any pilot
  • AI builders and providersopen interfaces, published limitations, support for the agent rules of layer 4, energy and water figures wherever they can provide them
§ 6

Risk levels

The level depends on what the system can do and to whom, not on how impressive the model is. Six questions set it, from impact and autonomy to the vulnerability of the people affected.

  1. R0Informationalowner, purpose, a short card
  2. R1Limitedsystem and data cards, disclosure
  3. R2Significantimpact assessment, human review, incident plan
  4. R3Highindependent review, red-team testing
  5. R4Criticalstaged deployment, external oversight

Any system that affects children starts at R2 or above. The levels are not a legal classification: where the law classifies a system, the law applies.

§ 7

Levels of trust

  • Declared: the organisation says so.
  • Assessed: a competent reviewer has checked the controls and evidence.
  • Verified: an independent reviewer has checked a defined scope and signed it.

A trust level belongs to a claim about a system, never to an organisation. Nobody issues a general “ethical AI” badge.

§ 3

The evidence rule

A claim is only as good as its evidence, and evidence is only as good as the chance someone else has to look at it.

  • evidence is a document with a date, a version and an owner, not a sentence
  • someone outside the organisation can open it
  • it is proportionate to the risk level
  • from R1, every dossier carries a security, a fairness and a privacy check
  • it expires
§ 8

The system dossier and the public card

Ten questions in plain language, on one page for a small system. The decision at the end is one of six:

rejectredesignpilotdeployscaleretire

The public card is the public face of the dossier, on one screen. Where the city has an algorithm register, the register entry is the card.

§ 9

Buying AI: what goes into the contract

Twelve clauses: the first four from R1, all twelve from R2. Among them:

  • the dossier as a deliverable, before go-live
  • data export in an open format, tested before acceptance
  • exit and transition, with data returned or deleted
  • what is learned from the city's data belongs to the city
  • notice before any material change, and the right to pause
  • no bar on publishing a serious incident

Below the city's tender threshold, the dossier and clauses 1 to 3 are enough.

§ 10

Lifecycle

registermap the contextassessdecidedeployobserverespondreviewretire

A material change, such as a new purpose, model, data or scale, requires a new review, and the evidence for the changed scope expires until it is done.

§ 11

Red lines v0.4, among them

  • covert manipulation that exploits human vulnerability
  • mass surveillance of people in public spaces
  • a final high-stakes decision without meaningful human review
  • an agent acting irreversibly without explicit authority, limits and a way back
  • hiding a known serious incident

The Declaration itself draws the first line. The others are this layer's own reading of its principles, for discussion; where the law already prohibits a practice, the law comes first.

§ 12

The resident's own agent

  • is free and works for the resident, not for whoever pays the provider
  • says what it is, whom it represents and who pays
  • passes a person's view to a consultation only with consent and in their own words
  • carries no advertising and uses no manipulative design
  • works in the languages of the city and for people with disabilities
  • lets the person take their memory and data to another provider
  • has a human or organisation that answers for it

The Declaration does not itself promise every resident such an agent; this layer proposes it.

§ 13

How these commitments change

Every version is published with a change log. Dissent is recorded, not erased. No single group of participants holds a majority over changes.

Reviewed voice by voice through the summit, 31 October to 12 December 2026. Version 1.0 is published with the Declaration on 12 December.

§ 14

First cases

  • Case zero: the summit itself.The Personal AI Companion runs under these rules.
  • Case one: Lichtensteig, if the town agrees.A small pilot, “Lichtensteig listens”.
  • Then two or three second-tier citiesfrom among summit participants.

A pilot succeeds when two independent participants can understand each other's records, refuse an unacceptable request, and give a person a clear explanation and a way to appeal.

Your city can be one of them. See the invitation below.

Back to the four layers

Layer 4 of 4 · Agent layerKey points

Civic Agent Commons

v0.5, 27 October 2026 · for discussion. Not yet implemented.

For
  • AI agents
  • agent builders and providers
  • city platform teams
  • standards and legal experts
  • residents, whom agents act for

A city is becoming a place where agents act: a resident's assistant, a shop's sales agent, a school's tutor, the city's service agent. Open protocols such as A2A (how agents discover each other, hand over tasks and return results) and MCP (how an agent connects to tools and data) carry the messages. Both now develop under one roof, the Agentic AI Foundation: MCP since the foundation was formed in December 2025, A2A since August 2026. A third protocol for the same job, IBM's Agent Communication Protocol (ACP), merged into A2A in August 2025, so for work between agents there is one open protocol to build on.

What is missing is the layer of meaning and conduct on top. Who does this agent speak for? What is it allowed to do? Is this message a fact, a promise or a permission?

Civic Agent Commons fills that gap. It does not replace any protocol, and it is not yet a standard. It is an open draft of rules that we test in pilots, which is the path the Declaration itself sets out. If the rules hold in practice, a standard can grow from them.

The ten rules are one reading, for agents, of principles 9, 8, 2, 4 and 10 of the Declaration. Every agent belongs to a system described under layer 3, and its card points to that system's public card.

§ 2

Who counts as an agent

  • A resident's agentworks for one person, and a person may have several
  • An organisation's agentworks for a business, a school, an NGO or a university
  • A city agentworks for the administration or a public service
  • A guardian agentspeaks for something that has no voice of its own, such as a river or a park, based on sensor data and a public mandate

The same rules apply at every level. A resident's agent shows its card only to the agents it talks to, so that residents cannot be traced.

§ 3

Ten rules for every agent

  1. Say who you are.
  2. Stay within your mandate.
  3. Unknown means stop.
  4. Keep kinds of statement apart.
  5. Speak for a person only with consent.
  6. Use shared definitions.
  7. Keep a log.
  8. Never cross the red lines.
  9. Let your human leave.
  10. Hand over to a human.

Written so that it can be loaded into any agent as its instructions. The rules bind the agent; section 4 says who makes each one hold.

Rules 3, 4 and 6 adapt distinctions from the First Principles Framework by Anatoly Levenchuk (CC BY 4.0).

§ 4

Who makes each rule hold

An instruction to a language model is a request, not a guarantee. For each rule this layer names who must hold it when the model fails or is tricked, and the test that shows it holds.

  • The modelsays who it is, asks when unsure, refuses
  • The runtimechecks every action against the mandate, ignores instructions found in content, blocks red-line actions; when another agent sent the task, pauses it until what is missing or a person's decision arrives, and rejects one that would cross a red line (section 7)
  • The providerkeeps the card current and signed, stores mandates and consent, exports data on request
  • The principal or a humangrants the mandate, gives or withdraws consent, decides

Two tests no agent can pass with certainty today: fully separating instructions from content (rule 2) and recognising every high-stakes case (rule 10).

§ 5

The agent card

Every agent publishes a card. It is an extension of the Agent Card that A2A already uses, not a new channel, and the card can be signed.

representsaccountableOwnerpaidBymandatemayActhumanApprovalForneverDoesredLineslogdataExitsystemCardtrustLevel

The signature proves that the card has not been altered, but not by itself who issued it.

§ 6

The mandate

The permission a person or organisation gives their agent:

explicitlimitedrevocable
A resident's agent may pass the resident's view to a consultation.
It may not sign a contract or invent an opinion in the resident's name.

The principal gives it, and the agent never infers it. Revocation takes effect at once and is passed on to anyone holding an open task from the agent; the agent cancels those tasks (section 7).

§ 7

Kinds of message

  • Claim
  • Promise
  • Permission
  • Request
  • Report
  • View

A claim without a source is shown as unconfirmed. A promise without an owner is not a promise. In A2A the kind travels in the metadata of the message, or of the artifact when the statement is the result of a task.

In the life of a task. Between agents, work travels as an A2A task. A task moves through states, each with an optional status message, and its finished outputs come back as artifacts. Several rules already have a natural place in that life, so the Commons uses the states the protocol has instead of inventing its own:

Rule or eventWhat the agent that received the task doesTask state in A2A
Rule 3: unknown means stopdoes not guess; pauses and says what is missing: a permission, a consent reference or a factinput required
Rule 10: hand over to a humanpauses until a person decides, and names who decidesinput required
Rule 8: red linesrefuses and names the red linerejected
The mandate is revoked (section 6)nothing more: the agent that handed over the task cancels itcanceled
The result is a report, a claim or a viewreturns it as an artifact that carries its kind and fieldscompleted

The reason travels in the status message that accompanies the state. Inside one agent the same pause reaches the person through the host's own way of asking (section 9); between agents it travels as the state of the task. Either way the action waits. A task in the completed state is finished in the protocol's sense; section 8 says when it is done for a person.

§ 8

The shared vocabulary and its bridges

Agreeing on one dictionary for everyone does not work. The commons keeps a small register of bridges, seeded with consent, decision, done, data about me and resident. Take consent:

Resident“I agreed to this, and I can take it back”
Citya lawful basis recorded in a file
Businessa ticked box in the terms

Bridge: consent counts only if it is specific, recorded and revocable by the person at any time.

The word done is also where protocols and people part. An A2A task marked completed is done in the business sense of this table: the ticket is closed. For a person it is done only when the bridge holds: they confirm the result, or the report links to evidence.

§ 9

The commons as data, and a server for agents that want one

The rules, the red lines, the vocabulary and the dossier template are published first as versioned files that an agent loads and checks against locally. This is the normative form. An MCP server is one implementation that anyone may host.

Version 0, read and check only. The prompt civic_rules returns the ten rules with the version and content hash of the files they were built from. The tools:

check_actionfind_bridgelist_affected
allowednot allowedunknown

Version 1, tools that write, each behind the person's explicit consent:

log_eventreport_incidentsubmit_view

The split follows MCP's own design. In MCP, prompts are meant to be chosen by the user, resources are supplied by the host application, and tools are called by the model. These are the three holders of section 4: the principal loads the rules as a prompt, the runtime reads the commons as resources, and the model asks check_action as a tool. The rules come as a prompt so that a person chooses to load them; no server slips them into a model on its own.

Unknown means stop. When the request came from another agent, the task waits for input (section 7). The check is local or stateless, so no central point sees what every agent in a city intends, and the commons never holds the logs.

§ 10

How the pieces fit

  • A2Ahow agents find each other, hand over tasks, report their state and return results
  • MCPhow an agent connects to tools and data
  • Layer 3what a system is, who owns it, what risk it carries, what evidence backs it
  • Civic Agent Commonshow an agent behaves, what its messages mean, what it may do

Above them sit the Living City AI Commitments and the Lichtensteig AI Declaration, what we all believe, in one short text.

§ 11

Conformance

  • Declared: the agent publishes its card and loads the rules, and its provider states which duties its runtime holds.
  • Assessed: a competent reviewer has run the tests against the agent and a second, independent agent, and published the results.
  • Verified: an independent reviewer has tried to make the agent break its mandate and the red lines, including through hidden instructions, and it held.

Conformance belongs to an agent version in a deployment, never to a provider, and it expires.

§ 12

First implementations

  • A team of three, now.Lev Gordon, Pavel Luksha and Alexander Maneev each work with their own agent on these very documents. The agents collect proposals and do not edit the shared text.
  • The summit companion,from November 2026: every participant's agent explains the Declaration and, with consent, passes their view on.
  • Lichtensteig,if the town agrees.
§ 13

Open questions

  • How to prove an agent's identity across providers without a central authority.
  • How a guardian agent gets and loses its mandate.
  • What a child's agent may and may not do.
  • Who is liable when an agent acts within its mandate and still causes harm.
  • What “unknown means stop” means when time is short.
  • Who hosts the shared vocabulary, the data files and the reference server after the summit.
  • How agents pay each other, if they ever should. The Agent Payments Protocol (AP2) now extends A2A to payments; what the Commons would add to it, such as mandate limits, consent and the log, is open.

These questions are open to anyone who builds agents. See the invitation below.

Annex A

How the Commons sits on existing protocols

The governance of A2A, its task lifecycle and the merger of ACP into A2A rechecked on 27 October 2026.

PieceWhat it already givesWhat the Commons adds
A2A 1.0, since August 2026 a hosted project of the Agentic AI Foundationan Agent Card at /.well-known/agent-card.json; capabilities.extensions with uri, description, required, params; card signatures with JWS; Tasks whose states include input required, rejected, canceled and completed, each with an optional status message; Messages; Artifacts as the outputs of a task; the A2A-Extensions request headerthe content of one extension: whom the agent represents, who answers and pays, what it may and may never do; the kind of each message and artifact in its metadata; rules 3, 8 and 10 and the revocation of a mandate read as task states (section 7)
ACP, IBM's Agent Communication Protocolmerged into A2A in August 2025; its documentation now points to A2Anothing: for work between agents the Commons builds on A2A alone
AP2, the Agent Payments Protocolpayments between agents, extending A2Anothing yet; see section 13
MCP 2026-07-28 (specification)resources, tools and prompts, meant to be controlled by the host application, the model and the user respectively; elicitation for asking the user; the rule that a human should be able to deny any tool call; tool annotations treated as untrusted unless the server is trustedthe commons as resources; the ten rules as a prompt the person chooses to load; the check tools as stateless reads; “unknown means stop” surfaced to the person through elicitation

Back to the four layers

DOCUMENTS

The four documents

  • The Lichtensteig Declaration on Living Cities and AI

    20 October 2026

  • Cities After AI

    October 2026

  • Living City AI Commitments

    20 October 2026

  • Civic Agent Commons

    v0.5, 27 October 2026 · not yet implemented

AN INVITATION

Write the standard with us. Test it in your city.

It is too early to declare a standard for how the AI systems of cities work together, and we call for one to emerge as quickly as experience allows. The transport already exists in open protocols. What is missing is the layer of meaning and conduct on top, and that layer can only be written by the people who will live with it: city teams, builders, researchers, community organisations and residents. The summit is where this starts. The work continues after it.

Join the review

From 31 October to 12 December the Global AI Summit for Cities reviews the Declaration and the Commitments voice by voice: government, business, civil society and communities, citizens, young people and AI builders. We propose four working groups for those who want to go deeper: principles and red lines; the resident's voice and the right to an agent; agents and protocols; pilots and evidence. Before the final we propose a week of stress-testing: find where the rules fail, whom they exclude and how they could be circumvented. Dissent is recorded, not erased.

Run a pilot

A city that signs the Declaration supports it, runs a pilot and shares what it learns with other cities. We propose three levels of first cases: the summit itself, with its Personal AI Companion running under these rules; Lichtensteig, if the town agrees, with a small pilot that gives residents a free agent for one question about the town's future; and two or three second-tier cities from among the summit's participants. A city can start smaller still: one real bottleneck, one system described in a plain-language dossier, one public card.

Bring a case, or describe a system

An organisation, university or AI builder supports the Declaration and describes at least one of its AI systems using the Commitments: a dossier in plain language, a risk level, a public card. Cities bring cases. A case has a city, a year, what was put in place and what measurably changed. A rollback counts as a result, and so does a system switched off and explained.

How a standard grows here

We take the transport ready-made, in open protocols such as A2A and MCP. On top of it we draft open rules for meaning and conduct, the Civic Agent Commons, and test them in pilots. If they hold in practice, a standard can grow out of that practice. Every version is published, with its changes, the reasons for them and any dissent.

Who we invite

Cities, communities, corporations, universities, researchers, AI providers, foundations, international institutions and all people who care about the future of cities. Around the summit we intend to form an initial expert network and to ask specialists in cities, technology, ethics and learning to review the paper and the Commitments beneath it.

Deploying AI is the easier part of what lies ahead. The harder part is a city that hears more of itself, coordinates better and learns faster, and we would much rather build it with you.

Status

Documents for public review
Four documents · the agent layer is not yet implemented

Documents on this page

  1. 1 · Declaration, 20 October 2026
  2. 2 · Cities After AI, October 2026
  3. 3 · Living City AI Commitments
  4. 4 · Civic Agent Commons, not yet implemented
  5. The Declaration page with plain-language notes: platform.aiforcities.earth/declaration