Summarise and paraphrase, and keep the numbers in the brackets:

Question

There have been various proposals for a different type of international governance mechanism that does not so much set and enforce
rules or guidelines on genome editing as facilitate greater public and stakeholder engagement on genome editing governance. Virtually every expert report on human genome editing has called for ongoing public engagement and dialogue to establish a broad social consensus before various genome editing approaches are attempted (30, 46, 54, 77, 82, 83, 97). Given the stakes and interests
of all humans in the application of such technology, such public participation in deciding uses of
human genome editing is imperative, but implementing this imperative is more challenging (2, 11,
82). First, there are no good precedents for global public engagement mechanisms. An oft-cited
example of successful public engagement is the approval of mitochondrial DNA replacement in
the United Kingdom after an extensive public engagement process (24, 56), but applying such a
process globally would be more problematic (51). A second challenge is that complete global consensus will of course never be possible, especially given the significant cultural, ethical, historical,
and legal differences among countries (20, 46, 82) and the major differences in public opinion
among and within nations on various gene editing applications (74, 78).
Notwithstanding (and indeed, to actively take on) these challenges, a number of innovative
proposals for stakeholder and public engagement on genome editing have been put forward (10).
One initiative that has actually already been launched is the Association for Responsible Research
and Innovation in Genome Editing, a global nonprofit organization that seeks to promote the
responsible global governance of genome editing through the involvement and interaction of
a broad range of stakeholders (81). Another idea that has been proposed is to create a global
consortium of 10–15 organizations that would be charged with connecting people with the science
and policy debates around human genome editing (15). Another proposal is to create a “global
observatory” on human gene editing that would consist of a network of scholars and organizations
that would be “dedicated to gathering information from dispersed sources, bringing to the fore
perspectives that are often overlooked, and promoting exchange across disciplinary and cultural
divides” (61, p. 436). Yet another proposal put forward is to create a “global citizens assembly” (42,
p. 1435) consisting of a representative sampling of people from around the world to deliberate and
give input on genome editing governance. The idea of a Governance Coordinating Committee
has been suggested as a mechanism for various stakeholders to communicate and coordinate with
each other (76). A key ingredient missing from all of these proposals is an institution that would
fund and host the initiative.

Answer 1

Various proposals for an alternative international governance framework for genome editing focus on enhancing public and stakeholder engagement rather than merely establishing and enforcing rules. Almost every expert report on human genome editing emphasizes the need for continuous public involvement and discussion to achieve a broad social agreement before proceeding with different genome editing methods (30, 46, 54, 77, 82, 83, 97). Given the universal implications of this technology, public participation in the decision-making related to human genome editing is essential, albeit challenging to implement (2, 11, 82).

One major hurdle is the lack of effective precedents for global public engagement. A notable example is the UK's approval of mitochondrial DNA replacement after extensive public consultations (24, 56), but replicating such a process on a global scale poses significant difficulties (51). Additionally, achieving complete global consensus is unfeasible due to the vast cultural, ethical, historical, and legal disparities between nations (20, 46, 82) as well as differing public opinions on gene editing applications (74, 78).

Despite these challenges, numerous innovative proposals for stakeholder and public engagement in genome editing have emerged (10). One such initiative is the Association for Responsible Research and Innovation in Genome Editing, a global nonprofit that aims to foster responsible governance through diverse stakeholder engagement (81). Another suggestion involves forming a global consortium of 10–15 organizations to bridge the gap between people and the scientific and policy discussions regarding human genome editing (15). Additionally, a "global observatory" has been proposed, consisting of a network of scholars and organizations dedicated to collecting information from various sources and facilitating cross-disciplinary and cultural exchanges (61, p. 436). Furthermore, a "global citizens assembly" (42, p. 1435) made up of a representative sample of the global population has been suggested to provide insights on genome editing governance. A Governance Coordinating Committee has also been recommended as a means for stakeholders to communicate and coordinate (76). However, a significant aspect lacking in all these proposals is a dedicated institution to fund and host the initiatives.