Youth AI Governance Forum

The Youth AI Governance Forum (YAIGF) believes that a successful first Dialogue should establish the foundations for a sustained, structured, and policy-relevant process for public participation, particularly for youth. For YAIGF, success is measured against a clear standard: does this first Dialogue lay credible foundations for a process that is genuinely inclusive, durable, and capable of translating dialogue into impact? Four outcomes are particularly important: 1. The establishment of a formal Youth Advisory Council on AI Governance, composed of geographically diverse representatives. The Council should input into thematic priorities, contribute to the drafting and review of Dialogue outputs, and engage directly with Member States and expert bodies. Institutionalising such a mechanism would mark a shift from ad hoc consultation toward sustained and meaningful youth participation. 2. The clear positioning of human rights as a foundational and non-negotiable framework. Human rights should not be treated as one theme among many, but as the lens through which all other priorities are interpreted and advanced. The UN Charter and its longstanding role in upholding international human rights norms should be reflected throughout the entirety of the Dialogue and its outputs. 3. The establishment of durable mechanisms for ongoing engagement beyond this first convening, moving from periodic consultation toward a continuous governance process with structured pathways that build momentum across the year. For youth specifically, meaningful participation cannot be achieved through one-off engagement, but must be embedded into the Dialogue and its affiliated processes from the outset. 4. A genuine commitment to bridging gaps that undermine effective AI governance: between regions, between technical and policy communities, and between governance processes and the populations most affected by AI systems. Outputs must be accessible and actionable for Member States across different levels of capacity, so that the Dialogue's impact is felt beyond Geneva.

• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• AI capacity-building
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI

These priorities are grounded in the findings of a structured youth stakeholder consultation conducted from April 8, 2026 to April 27, 2026. The YAIGF consulted the Young AI Leaders Community for input. Protection and promotion of human rights emerged as a central concern, particularly in relation to privacy, data protection, and surveillance. Privacy violations, including non-consensual data scraping, collection of minors' data, and the use of AI in surveillance systems, were the most frequently cited risks. Participants also highlighted risks to democratic processes through AI-enabled misinformation, deepfakes, and targeted propaganda. Transparency, accountability, and human oversight were identified as critical enablers of effective governance. A recurring concern was the gap between high-level principles and enforceable mechanisms. Participants called for mandatory audits, clearer accountability structures, and stronger oversight of high-risk applications, particularly in sensitive domains such as political processes and public services. AI capacity-building is included as a core priority due to strong consensus around AI literacy. Educational harms were a prominently raised concern, including over-reliance on AI, reduced critical thinking, and impacts on creativity and mental well-being. These findings highlight the need for policies that support informed and responsible use, as well as meaningful participation in governance processes. Finally, the social, economic, and ethical implications of AI reflect the cross-cutting nature of the risks identified. These include impacts on education systems, information ecosystems, labour, and social trust, as well as concerns around corporate concentration and long-term societal effects.

Several cross-cutting and emerging issues identified through the consultation are not fully captured within the listed themes. 1. The impact of AI on education and cognitive development requires more explicit recognition. Participants consistently highlighted concerns around over-reliance on AI systems, including cognitive offloading, reduced critical thinking, and implications for creativity and mental well-being. These effects are long-term, systemic, and particularly relevant to younger generations, yet remain underrepresented in current governance frameworks. 2. The governance of AI-generated information ecosystems is insufficiently foregrounded. While related to existing themes, the scale and speed of AI-enabled misinformation, including deepfakes and targeted synthetic media, present distinct risks to democratic processes and public trust. Addressing these challenges will require more coordinated, cross-sectoral approaches, including both technical and regulatory measures. 3. The concentration of power within a small number of technology companies emerged as a structural concern. Participants raised issues related to corporate influence over governance processes, market dominance, and unequal access to AI capabilities. These dynamics have implications for accountability, fairness, and the distribution of benefits. 4. There is a persistent gap between the principle of inclusion and its implementation. While processes for public participation are widely endorsed, mechanisms for sustained and meaningful engagement, particularly for youth and other underrepresented groups, remain limited. This undermines both the legitimacy and effectiveness of governance processes. Taken together, these issues point to the need for governance approaches that are comprehensive and responsive to evolving societal impacts and power dynamics, particularly those affecting younger populations.

Governance gaps in the selected thematic areas are already having tangible impacts, particularly in relation to education, information integrity, and data protection. For youth, these are immediate and lived realities. In educational contexts, the rapid adoption of AI tools has outpaced the development of clear guidelines. This has led to inconsistent institutional responses, including assessment reforms that may unintentionally disadvantage students, alongside growing concerns about over-reliance on AI and its effects on critical thinking, learning outcomes, and creativity. In the area of information integrity, the increasing accessibility of AI-generated content has amplified risks related to misinformation and manipulation. This presents growing challenges for political processes and social trust, particularly in contexts where regulatory and technical safeguards remain underdeveloped. Data protection and privacy also remain significant concerns. Non-consensual data collection and the expansion of AI-enabled surveillance are compounded by limited transparency and weak enforcement mechanisms, raising serious human rights implications. At the same time, these gaps point to clear opportunities. There is strong potential to integrate AI literacy into education systems, develop more robust standards for transparency and accountability, and design governance processes that are more inclusive and representative. As a foundational principle, governance frameworks must ensure that public participation mechanisms meaningfully integrate youth, so that those most affected by the long-term impacts of AI are directly involved in shaping its development and oversight. Youth-led initiatives are already contributing to these efforts by translating lived experience into actionable insights, and the YAIGF stands ready to support continued engagement beyond this submission.

The Dialogue can play a critical role as both a convening and bridging mechanism in the evolving landscape of global AI governance. Meaningful youth representation remains a core priority and should be formally recognised within the Dialogue. The primary value of the Dialogue lies in its ability to connect diverse communities: policymakers, technical experts, civil society, and underrepresented stakeholders. By facilitating structured exchange between youth voices and these groups, it can help align perspectives and contribute to more effective responses to shared challenges. The Dialogue is also well positioned to foster mutual understanding across different governance models. Approaches vary significantly across regions, from more regulatory frameworks in the European Union, to market-driven approaches in the United States, to principles-based frameworks in Japan. Rather than seeking convergence, the Dialogue provides a space for Member States and other stakeholders to compare approaches and learn from one another, while remaining grounded in the human rights principles that the UN is uniquely placed to uphold. This shared foundation need not produce uniformity, but can instead serve as a common reference point from which diverse governance approaches evolve in a coherent and rights-respecting direction. Central to the success of the Dialogue will be its ability to embed human rights and youth perspectives from the outset, ensuring they are not only represented but meaningfully integrated into policy discussions and outputs. Establishing mechanisms such as a Youth Advisory Council on AI Governance would support this objective. While not a regulatory body, the Dialogue can still play an important role in shaping norms, highlighting best practices, and building trust, thereby contributing to more coordinated and effective international cooperation grounded in shared principles.

The AI Dialogue has a unique opportunity to connect and bring coherence to the many discussions on AI governance already taking place across communities, regions, and stakeholder groups. Rather than creating another parallel process, its added value lies in drawing these efforts together, identifying shared priorities, and establishing structured pathways through which diverse voices, particularly those currently absent from formal governance, can contribute to coordinated action. A key structural gap across existing efforts remains the lack of institutionalised and sustained youth participation. Findings from the YAIGF consultation highlight that youth perspectives are not only relevant, but important for addressing the long term societal impacts of AI systems. Strengthening mechanisms for structured youth engagement within the Dialogue would help move beyond ad hoc consultation towards more sustained and policy relevant participation. One possible approach would be the establishment of a Youth Advisory Council on AI Governance, composed of geographically diverse representatives, with particular attention to the Global South. Such a body could contribute to the identification of thematic priorities, support policy discussions, provide input into the drafting and review of Dialogue outputs, and engage with Member States and expert bodies. Existing youth networks, including the YAIGF, are well placed to support the aggregation, synthesis, and translation of youth inputs into policy relevant contributions, helping to ensure continuity between consultations and formal governance processes. The Dialogue's ability to formalise these linkages and move from fragmented participation to more structured inclusion will be central to its long term credibility and impact.

The published draft agenda represents a meaningful foundation for inclusive AI governance. The YAIGF welcomes its process for public participation, particularly the co-chairing of thematic discussions by Member States and relevant stakeholders, and the integration of civil society alongside governments, industry, and academia. However, the current structure does not yet make visible the lived experiences and priorities of youth as a distinct stakeholder group, a gap that this submission respectfully urges be addressed. Within the existing agenda, the YAIGF recommends that at least one designated slot, whether within the high-level multi-stakeholder plenary, a thematic breakout, or a dedicated side event, be used to foreground youth perspectives. This need not require restructuring the agenda; rather, it calls for intentional curation of who speaks, on what, and in what capacity. Youth voices should be present as contributors to shaping substantive discussion. Looking beyond this first iteration, the YAIGF recommends that future Dialogues adopt a staged stakeholder engagement model. Rather than concentrating participation in a single two-day event, engagement should be distributed across the year through quarterly sessions convened by the Dialogue, affiliated bodies, or the Independent International Scientific Panel. These sessions would serve to build momentum incrementally, surface diverse viewpoints early in the consultation cycle, and allow underrepresented communities, including youth, to contribute meaningfully before positions solidify. This approach would transform the Dialogue from a periodic convening into a living governance process. For youth specifically, it would create structured, recurring opportunities to translate lived experience into policy-relevant input, ensuring that the perspectives of those most affected by AI's long-term impacts are consistently embedded, not added retrospectively, across all thematic clusters.

This submission is informed by a clear observation: youth are not meaningfully represented in global AI governance discussions. Despite being among those most affected by the long term consequences of AI systems, young people remain largely absent from the formal structures through which governance decisions are made. Where inclusion does exist, it is often ad hoc and consultative, rather than structured and sustained. Addressing this gap requires recognising youth as a distinct stakeholder group within AI governance, with dedicated mechanisms to support credible, consistent, and policy relevant participation. One potential approach would be the establishment of a Youth Advisory Council on AI Governance linked to the Global Dialogue. Such a body could be composed of geographically diverse representatives, with particular attention to the Global South, and could contribute to the identification of thematic priorities, support the review of Dialogue outputs, and engage with Member States and expert bodies. It should be designed to complement existing platforms, including the UN Internet Governance Forum and the UN Major Group for Children and Youth. Beyond institutional mechanisms, youth inclusion should be treated as a design principle rather than an afterthought. This includes embedding youth perspectives across thematic clusters and working groups, integrating them into official outputs, and establishing clear feedback loops so that contributors can understand how their inputs shape outcomes. Youth-led networks can play an important role in aggregating and translating diverse perspectives into policy relevant contributions, while also supporting continuity between consultations and formal governance processes. Strengthening these linkages will be important for ensuring more inclusive and representative AI governance over the long term.

Building on YAIGF's recommendation for a formal Youth Advisory Council on AI Governance, innovative engagement formats should be designed not only to diversify participation, but to ensure that the concerns and priorities identified through youth consultation, including those around privacy, misinformation, education, and accountability, are reflected in the substance of the Dialogue itself. A Youth Advisory Council would be well placed to help convene and shape the following formats: Youth-led sessions. Rather than simply attending discussions, young people should be empowered to facilitate them. Dedicated youth-led sessions, structured around lived experience and forward-looking priorities, would offer a register of insight that expert panels alone cannot provide. These sessions would signal genuine commitment to intergenerational exchange and could feed directly into thematic cluster discussions and official outputs. Scenario-based governance workshops. Interactive workshops placing youth participants in AI governance scenarios would serve both as an engagement tool and a diagnostic one. By working through real-world governance challenges, such as regulating autonomous systems or responding to AI-enabled misinformation, participants would surface practical priorities and test the applicability of existing frameworks. Outputs from these workshops could inform pre-Dialogue evidence gathering, creating a meaningful link between community engagement and formal proceedings. Underpinning these formats should be a baseline commitment to hybrid and asynchronous access. High-quality remote participation, recorded interventions, and written input portals are not themselves innovative, but they are essential preconditions for any engagement format to be genuinely inclusive, particularly for participants from the Global South and other underrepresented regions.

The YAIGF wishes to highlight several practices that offer concrete models for more inclusive and effective AI governance. Youth inclusion by design. Drawing on the logic of privacy by design, the YAIGF advocates for youth participation to be embedded from the earliest stages of governance processes rather than added retrospectively. Applied to the Global Dialogue, this means ensuring that youth perspectives are present at the agenda-setting stage, reflected in thematic discussions, and visible in official outputs. While the Dialogue is not a binding instrument, Member States and other stakeholders who wish to draw on its findings should be able to see clearly that those findings were shaped by a meaningfully representative process, including the voices of younger generations. Critically, this principle extends beyond those currently old enough to participate. Many of the latent effects of AI on child populations remain poorly understood, yet the governance frameworks being built today will shape the world that younger children inherit. By embedding youth inclusion as a foundational practice now, we create the conditions for future generations to encounter governance structures that already take their concerns seriously, rather than arriving at a table where the decisions have long been made. Structured youth-led consultation. Structured consultation processes that synthesise inputs from geographically diverse youth communities into coherent, policy-relevant positions offer a replicable model for evidence-based, inclusive engagement. Platforms such as the YAIGF, whose mission is to increase meaningful youth participation in AI governance, are already putting this into practice and stand ready to contribute in a sustained and structured capacity. More broadly, effective AI governance benefits from consistently engaging voices outside the technical and policy mainstream, grounding discussions in the everyday realities of those most affected by AI systems.