Knowledge Café - Youth Participation and Digital Inclusion Action Toward WSIS 2035

Fatima Gayoor presents WSIS as an intergovernmental process that also involves multiple stakeholders. She frames it as a long-running forum concerned with digital transformation and development, especially useful for learning about public-sector implementation of new technologies.

She explicitly described WSIS as 'an intergovernmental process with multiple stakeholders involved' and said it began in the early 2000s . She added that, from her perspective, it covers digital transformation and digital development and is a useful place to learn about new technologies, particularly in public-sector implementation .

Dunola Mgbachi explains that the knowledge café is structured to collect youth perspectives in an organised way. Facilitators and scribes at each table are meant to ensure that participants' views are captured and incorporated into official WSIS documentation.

She said each table would have a facilitator and a scribe, and asked participants to make sure everything said was noted down because it would 'add to the overall document for the WSIS process' . She later reiterated that the detailed notes would go into a final report published on the WSIS website and included in the overall reporting process .

Nadir Atayev argues that the youth café should do more than host discussion; it should produce practical ideas that contribute to wider WSIS implementation. He presents the session as a place to exchange ideas, learn from one another and help turn global commitments into concrete action.

He said he was excited for the outcomes that would be noted during the session and described the activity as a space for exchanging ideas, learning from each other and participating in practical solutions . He then stated that the goal should be to turn global commitments into 'real actions, real partnerships, and real opportunities for young people' .

Nadir Atayev argues that young people are not merely future beneficiaries of digital policy but participants in shaping the digital world now. Because youth already use, create and collaborate through digital technologies, he says their role in governance must be substantive rather than tokenistic.

He stressed that youth are 'not only the future of the digital world' because they already use digital technologies, create ideas, learn, communicate and collaborate . On that basis, he concluded that youth participation 'should be meaningful and not only just symbolic' .

Hamza Hameed argues that youth must be centrally involved in digital policy because demographic realities make them a major constituency. His point is that policies on digital issues and AI need to be discussed where young populations are actually located, especially given Africa's demographic significance.

He reported that table participants noted that one in four people will be a young person and one in four people will be from Africa . Based on this, he argued that dialogues on digital policy and AI should be taken to places where these populations live, including Africa, South America and the Asia-Pacific region .

Hamza Hameed argues that youth participation in digital policy should be organised through public-interest institutions rather than left entirely to ad hoc or private arrangements. He suggests that public-sector and UN-related leadership can better ensure legitimacy and alignment with collective goals.

He said one of the important points raised at his table was that discussions about young people's participation in digital policy should 'largely be led by the public sector and by UN-related organizations' . He explained that this was to make sure such discussions are carried out 'in the public interest and for the good of all' .

Hamza Hameed highlights that inclusion is undermined when policy discussions are held in locations that many young people cannot reach. He argues that accessibility barriers such as visas, flights and accommodation costs prevent broad youth participation, so engagement must be brought closer to where young people live.

He said participants observed that opportunities for dialogue often exist in places that are inaccessible to young people from many parts of the world because of visas, the cost of accommodation and the cost of flights . He added that it would help if these discussions were taken directly into countries and regions where young people are located .

This participant argues that simple participation is insufficient if young people do not have meaningful influence. The emphasis is on effective engagement, especially through intergenerational processes that bring youth into actual policy decisions rather than leaving them outside formal decision-making.

The participant said their table discussed what 'effective participation' really means and concluded that the issue is better framed as 'effective engagement' . They also highlighted 'intergenerational participation', explaining that youth are often left out of policy decisions and that future discussion should focus on integrating more youth from different fields and experiences into decision-making .

This participant argues that youth influence depends on structured access to policymaking rather than informal inclusion alone. They stress the need for formal participation channels, stronger trust between generations and clearer pathways from discussion to implementation.

The speaker said their table focused on 'how do we break that first barrier' so that youth have 'actual formal channels' into these discussions . They identified the need for youth to stay informed about regulatory frameworks, for civil society to build trust between older and younger generations, and for an 'actual implementation pathway' so that regulatory actors are aligned and youth input can shape outcomes .

This participant argues that youth influence is weakened when it is filtered through bureaucracy or segregated into special youth-labelled spaces. They propose more direct communication between young people and senior leaders, alongside more integrated intergenerational forums.

The participant proposed 'thinking pods' that create direct channels between younger generations and senior leaders, such as ministers, instead of forcing communication through multiple bureaucratic layers . They also argued against limiting youth participation to events branded as 'youth events', saying this can reduce the quality of participation and make intergenerational dialogue less effective .

This participant argues that sustained and repeated engagement is necessary to broaden awareness of WSIS. Regular events would create more opportunities for different groups, including young people and academics, to understand the process and contribute to it.

The speaker said that, looking to the future, more people first need to understand what WSIS is . As a practical suggestion, they proposed holding a WSIS event every year so that more people, 'such as professors and teenagers', can share their views and become involved .

This participant presents WSIS implementation as an ongoing shared effort in which different stakeholder groups contribute distinct forms of expertise and information. The argument is that coordination across these groups is necessary for continuous progress and practical implementation.

The participant said governments should share information across youth circles and create opportunities for young people to update authorities on technological developments . They added that civil society and the private sector can share knowledge on ongoing advances, academic and technical communities can contribute research and best practices, and international organisations can continue disseminating knowledge through forums .

This participant argues that governments cannot deliver WSIS objectives by themselves. They maintain that implementation depends on contributions from all stakeholder groups, with each offering part of what is needed to make the process succeed.

The speaker said that at first glance WSIS might seem like 'just a government' matter, but that the help government can give is limited . They then argued that civil society, youth, technical and academic communities, and international organisations can each contribute 'a little bit of help', and that together they can make the WSIS project successful .

This participant argues that broad inequalities should be addressed by using multilateral processes to establish priorities across different levels of governance. They see WSIS-style coordination as useful not only globally but also regionally and subregionally.

The speaker said one of their three headline solutions was to 'set priorities through multilateral processes such as WSIS' . They specified that this should happen at international, regional and sub-regional levels .

This participant argues that infrastructure expansion should be guided by evidence rather than general assumptions. They also suggest practical coordination tools, such as an international marketplace for vendors and suppliers, to help countries lacking domestic capacity build infrastructure more effectively.

They proposed 'data-driven needs assessment processes' to identify which areas and groups do not have access . They also suggested creating an international marketplace for vendors and suppliers because some countries lack enough suppliers or technical expertise to build national infrastructure on their own .

This participant argues that capacity-building for digital inclusion should extend beyond youth alone to the broader community around them. Safe and effective use of cyberspace requires local training and community-level involvement.

In the table's headline solutions, the participant said capacity-building should involve local communities and include trainings, workshops and other forms of support . They specified that children, teachers, parents and the wider community should be equipped to use cyberspace in a safe and appropriate manner .

This participant argues that youth internet access must be accompanied by stronger systems to shield children from inappropriate or harmful content. They suggest age-aware controls as one possible mechanism for distinguishing between children and adults online.

Through a translated intervention, the participant said the main concern was safety for teenagers on the internet . They proposed that governments build control systems using forms of ID-based scanning to distinguish whether a user is a teenager or an adult, because some websites expose children to violent or deceptive content .

This participant argues that users, including young people, need stronger privacy safeguards on commonly used social and messaging platforms. The concern is that weak protections can expose personal information in everyday situations.

The translated remarks included a suggestion to create another layer of protection for services such as WhatsApp, WeChat or Instagram . The participant explained that when walking on the road, others can easily see private information on a screen, so stronger privacy or firewall-like protections are needed .

Diana Kuznetsova argues that youth participation should not depend only on goodwill but should be protected through formal mechanisms. Legal guarantees, including quotas or representation requirements, would help ensure that young people consistently have a place in decision-making spaces.

She said one of her table's solutions was to 'guarantee by law' that young people have space to participate . She gave the example of creating a quota or percentage for youth representation as a practical mechanism .

Diana Kuznetsova argues that young people can be excluded not only by process but also by language. She says institutional and international policy language is often too complex, so information needs to be translated into clearer, more accessible forms.

She said one of the table's ideas was to explain things to young people in 'a more comprehensive language' because many materials produced by adults or international organisations are very complicated . She added that this makes it hard for younger generations to understand and participate, especially while they are still developing their capacity .

Diana Kuznetsova argues that youth participation must be supported by investment in skills and experience. Training and conferences are presented as practical ways to build the expertise young people need to contribute meaningfully.

She said one of the solutions her group proposed was 'building expertise' by investing in young people . She specified practical measures such as providing trainings and organising conferences to strengthen their ability to participate effectively .

Asli Telli argues that multistakeholder implementation should be guided by the needs of those most harmed or excluded. She links this priority to the need for investment in institutional capacity, partnerships and collaboration so that stakeholder cooperation can actually serve vulnerable communities.

She said the online group wanted to prioritise 'the most vulnerable in this equation of stakeholders' and make sure WSIS implementation is centred on the needs of the most harmed and impacted communities . She added that achieving this requires investment in institutional capacity-building, stakeholder partnership and collaboration, and described youth as an important stakeholder in enabling that understanding .

Roser Almenar argues that the digital divide remains a massive global problem and that youth and women are among those most affected. She uses this to justify targeted attention to youth opportunities and barriers within digital inclusion efforts.

She stated that '2.2 billion people' are still offline and therefore unable to benefit from digital society, commerce and other opportunities . She added that many of those affected are young people and women, and said this divide means youth opportunities should be specifically addressed .

Roser Almenar argues that access alone is not enough; young users also need the skills to navigate an information-rich environment responsibly. She highlights digital and AI literacy as necessary to help children and youth evaluate information and benefit fairly from technology.

She said there is such a huge amount of information available that children often lack the ability to tell 'what's good, what's wrong' . She therefore stressed the importance of digital literacy and AI literacy so young users can distinguish reliable information from misinformation and ensure that AI benefits everyone, not only those from privileged backgrounds .

Elizabeth Duncan argues that educational technology cannot be separated from the infrastructure that enables it. Even promising digital learning tools remain inaccessible without the physical systems and devices needed to deliver them, especially in rural or lower-income areas.

She said her group identified a 'connectivity and disparity gap' and noted that educational technologies cannot reach those who need them most without the necessary hardware in rural, lower-income or developing areas . She added that the group therefore discussed fibre optic cables, data centres and the physical nature of these tools as a critical part of the issue .

Elizabeth Duncan argues that digitalisation has expanded educational options, including online learning and specialised tools, but these technologies are not self-sufficient. Human support from teachers and parents remains essential to ensure that children benefit fully from digital tools.

She said her table highlighted innovative digital technologies such as online learning that expanded during COVID-19 and AI-driven or specialised learning programmes for neurodivergent learners and those with disabilities . She then emphasised that the group also saw a continuing need for human interaction, with teachers and parents being critical to ensuring these technologies are used to their greatest benefit .

Marilyn Lorelei Conde Gomez argues that the pandemic exposed severe inequalities in access to digital education. The inability of many children to access basic devices or internet connectivity demonstrated how far many communities remain from equitable participation.

She said her table began by discussing how, during COVID-19, many children did not have access to the internet, laptops or even phones needed to attend online classes . She presented this as evidence of the scale of the connectivity struggle faced by children and young people .

Marilyn Lorelei Conde Gomez argues that affordability is a major barrier to inclusion, not just availability. She notes that in some countries high data costs and market structures with limited competition make connectivity inaccessible for many young people.

She said the group discussed the high cost of data use in countries such as Tanzania, South Africa and Mozambique . She further explained that in some of these contexts provision is largely government-based, which reduces incentives to lower data costs, and that there are too few public conversations about why coverage is so expensive and unaffordable .

Marilyn Lorelei Conde Gomez argues that broader national crises can make digital inclusion much harder to achieve. Conflict and natural disasters place additional pressure on governments and infrastructure, making sustained connectivity difficult.

She said the discussion also covered security issues and situations where conflicts are increasingly arising in different countries, which worsen the lack of connectivity . She added that natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods create further challenges, especially where governments are already struggling to sustain themselves and manage multiple crises .

Amy Vargas Mendoza argues that financing for digital inclusion should avoid increasing debt burdens on countries with major infrastructure needs. She proposes grants as a fairer and more practical mechanism for helping countries build connectivity and capacity.

She said the recurring solution in her table's discussion was the need for grants rather than only vague funding opportunities . She explained that countries needing to build infrastructure and capacity should be able to do so without 'additional onerous loans' being imposed on them .

Laura Mantilla Leon argues that digital inclusion should not be measured only by whether internet access exists. Young people also need regulation, protection and capacity-building so that they can use the internet safely and productively.

She said her table discussed that it is not only about giving everyone internet access but also about regulating that access, especially for younger people . She added that young users need skills and improved capacity-building so that they can make good use of the internet they access .

Laura Mantilla Leon argues that digital policy should be flexible enough to fit the realities of different countries and communities. She suggests that discussions like this are valuable because they can shape frameworks that governments then adapt to their own circumstances.

She said her table discussed how these exchanges help set the framework for policies governments will apply in their countries . She emphasised that it is important to consider how such policies can be adapted to different contexts in different countries and communities .

Laura Mantilla Leon argues that generational scepticism partly reflects the speed of technological change. Older participants in her discussion were concerned both about the social effects of these policies on young people and about regulators' inability to keep pace with rapid digital development.

She reported that, because the table included a diverse age group, some older-generation participants expressed scepticism about the implementation of digital policies, especially those shaping young people's minds . She added that they were concerned that digital development is accelerating faster than policies can be implemented to regulate it .

Laura Mantilla Leon argues that simply expanding access without protection can expose young people to harm. She therefore links internet access to regulation, online protection and skill-building for responsible use.

She specifically said there should be greater awareness of online protection . She then explained that inclusion is 'not only about giving Internet access to everyone', but also about regulating that access for younger people and giving them the skills to use the internet well .

Daniella Esi Darlington argues that young people's digital needs should be identified through direct consultation rather than assumed from above. She also proposes practical spaces such as innovation hubs or digital factories where young people can collaboratively design solutions relevant to their communities.

She said her group believed it is important not only to provide access but also to ask young people directly what is happening in the digital age and what challenges and opportunities they see, using methods such as surveys, street debates, town halls and sessions like this one . She then proposed building 'digital factories' or digital innovation hubs with local actors and organisations so young people can co-design and co-ideate solutions for problems in their communities .

Daniella Esi Darlington argues that language barriers limit real digital inclusion. She says that if digital resources remain concentrated in English and other dominant languages, many communities will struggle to access information and build locally relevant innovation.

She observed that although many technologies exist today, most resources are available only in English and dominant Western languages rather than local languages . She therefore argued for solutions such as voice tools to contextualise information so people can understand what is available and use it to develop new technologies that support their livelihoods .

Elina Lampi argues that effective policymaking starts with conceptual clarity about what digital needs actually consist of. She warns that without that groundwork, solutions risk being too generic and failing to respond to different national realities.

She said her group concluded that stakeholders need to 'define what digital needs are first in order to proceed properly' . She also said this means being aware of national contexts when designing solutions, signalling that standardised approaches are insufficient .

Elina Lampi argues that digital inclusion should be grounded in rights rather than treated only as a technical or service-delivery issue. Framing access as a human right helps orient policy towards equity and genuine inclusion.

She said one possible solution discussed by her group would be to frame digital access as 'a human right' . She linked this to the broader goal of achieving true digital inclusion rather than partial or superficial access .

Abril Ortega Andrade argues that digital inclusion policies must be tailored to each country's actual capacities and social context. She emphasises that infrastructure, technical ability, skills and language diversity all need to shape the design of solutions.

She said that 'one size fits all approaches do not work' and that solutions should be designed based on country-specific needs . She added that they must take account of the infrastructure, technological abilities, skills already present in target countries, and the inclusion of less-spoken local languages .

Abril Ortega Andrade argues that digital education should prepare young people not just to use tools but to navigate online environments responsibly and safely. She frames resilience, safety and critical awareness as core educational needs in the digital age.

She said digital education should include training on healthy social media use and critical awareness of harmful online trends . She added that digital resilience and online safety should be included for all youth and, more broadly, for everyone .

Abril Ortega Andrade argues that digital wellbeing must include mental health considerations. She links this to the reality that young people face an environment saturated with information and says WSIS discussions should keep this issue on the agenda.

She said her group raised the growing relevance of young people's mental health in a world 'overloaded with so much information' . She added that it should remain a priority within the WSIS process and welcomed a proposed UN Secretary-General declaration on youth and mental health well-being .

Gayla Al Mannaee argues that the young people in the room are already ready to lead the digital world. She says that beyond building their own capabilities, they should also focus on cultivating future leaders to ensure long-term sustainability of their initiatives.

She told participants that, from hearing their ideas and questions, she felt they were 'already ready' to lead the future and the digital world . She then said that they should focus not only on building their own capability but also on 'how to build the next leaders' so that their initiatives will be sustainable .

Gayla Al Mannaee argues for participatory leadership that treats young people as co-creators rather than passive recipients of guidance. In her view, a leader's role is to bring youth into the process of shaping the future and creating conditions for ideas to become reality.

She said that as a leader her job is not simply 'to tell you what I see the future' . Instead, she said leadership means involving young people in the future, involving them in how to create it, and providing an environment that can turn their ideas into reality .

Gayla Al Mannaee argues that digital transformation cannot succeed through technology investment alone. Sustainable progress requires equal attention to developing people, skills and leadership.

She explicitly said that people must be invested in 'same as investing in technology' . She explained that without people, it will not be possible to reach the intended targets, and illustrated this through the launch of the Fatima bint Mubarak Digital Leadership Initiative for African Girls, which brings experts together to provide practical digital skills and build ability in the field .

Gayla Al Mannaee argues that reflection and learning are not enough on their own. She says that action is what turns curiosity, experimentation and education into meaningful outcomes.

She referred to familiar advice such as being curious, trying new things and never stopping learning . She then said something important is missing from that list, namely 'do action', arguing that without action there is no meaning in all the rest .