SHIELD the future & 5RIGHTS

As a Youth Council Leader and Child Rights Ambassador, I believe the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance will only be successful if it creates space for genuine inclusion, shared accountability, and practical action that reflects the realities of people most affected by technology, especially children and young people. For too long, global conversations about technology governance have been dominated by governments, corporations, and technical experts, while the voices of young people, communities from the Global South, educators, and civil society remain underrepresented. A successful Dialogue should challenge this imbalance by recognizing children and youth not only as beneficiaries of AI governance, but as active stakeholders whose lived experiences and ideas matter. I would consider the Dialogue successful if it leads to concrete commitments toward child-centred and human rights-based AI governance. This includes stronger protections against online exploitation, harmful algorithms, misinformation, digital exclusion, and privacy violations affecting children and vulnerable communities. At the same time, governance discussions should also focus on how AI can expand access to education, participation, innovation, and opportunities for young people globally. Success should also mean building sustainable collaboration across sectors and regions. Governments, technology companies, the UN system, youth networks, academia, and civil society must move beyond statements and establish mechanisms for continued dialogue, accountability, and shared learning. Most importantly, the Dialogue should leave young people feeling heard, respected, and meaningfully involved in shaping the future of AI governance. Decisions about the future of technology should not be made for young people without young people. If this Dialogue can create a foundation for inclusive participation, ethical leadership, and collective global responsibility, it will mark an important step toward a safer, fairer, and more child-centred digital future.

• Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
• Interoperability of governance approaches
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI

My selected priorities reflect both my work as a Youth Council Leader and Child Rights Ambassador, and my belief that AI governance must place people: especially children and young people, at the centre of global decision-making. Safe, secure and trustworthy AI is a priority because children and vulnerable communities are increasingly exposed to online harms, manipulation, misinformation, exploitative systems, and unsafe digital environments. As AI becomes more integrated into education, social platforms, and public services, safety and trust cannot be treated as secondary concerns. I also prioritise the social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic, and technical implications of AI because many communities, particularly in the Global South, are already experiencing unequal access, cultural exclusion, and digital inequalities. AI systems are often developed without sufficient understanding of local realities, languages, and contexts. Governance discussions must therefore go beyond technology itself and address the broader societal impact of AI on identity, participation, education, and inclusion. Interoperability of governance approaches is equally important because AI challenges are global and cannot be addressed through fragmented responses alone. Governments, civil society, international organisations, academia, and technology companies need shared principles and collaborative approaches that still respect regional and cultural differences. Stronger cooperation is necessary to ensure accountability and avoid widening global inequalities. Finally, the protection and promotion of human rights remains central to all AI governance discussions. Human dignity, child rights, privacy, non-discrimination, participation, and access to information must guide the development and deployment of AI systems. Governance frameworks should strengthen rights rather than weaken them. Together, these priorities reflect my commitment to ensuring that AI governance becomes more inclusive, rights based, globally representative, and responsive to the lived realities of children and young people worldwide.

Yes. While the listed themes are important, I believe there are several cross-cutting issues that require stronger attention if global AI governance is to become truly inclusive, equitable, and future-oriented. First, the meaningful participation of children and young people remains insufficiently reflected across many AI governance discussions. Young people are among the most affected users of digital technologies, yet they are rarely included in decision-making spaces beyond symbolic consultation. AI governance frameworks should intentionally create mechanisms for youth participation, co-creation, and intergenerational dialogue. Second, there is a growing need to address digital inequality and unequal AI power dynamics between the Global North and Global South. Many countries and communities still lack the infrastructure, resources, representation, and policy influence necessary to shape AI systems that reflect their realities. Without deliberate efforts toward inclusion and equitable participation, AI risks reinforcing existing social, economic, and geopolitical inequalities. Another emerging issue is the cultural and linguistic representation within AI systems. Many AI tools continue to marginalize local languages, indigenous knowledge, and diverse cultural contexts. Governance conversations should therefore examine whose knowledge is being prioritised, whose realities are being excluded, and how AI can better reflect global diversity. I also believe that child rights and online safety should be treated as cross-cutting priorities rather than standalone concerns. Issues such as privacy, digital wellbeing, misinformation, exploitation, mental health, and algorithmic influence increasingly intersect with children's daily lives across education, social media, and digital participation spaces. Finally, there is a need for stronger ethical reflection on the long-term societal impact of AI, including its influence on democracy, civic participation, trust, human relationships, and social cohesion. Addressing these emerging issues will be essential in ensuring that AI governance remains people-centred, rights-based, and globally representative.

In my context as a Youth Council Leader and Child Rights Ambassador working within child rights, digital inclusion, and youth engagement spaces, the governance gaps around AI are already affecting children and young people across Kenya and many parts of the Global South in both visible and invisible ways. One of the most significant challenges is the rapid adoption of AI-driven technologies without equally strong safeguards for child protection, privacy, accountability, and digital wellbeing. Many children and young people are interacting with algorithm-driven platforms daily, yet there is limited awareness, regulation, or oversight regarding how their data is collected, how content is recommended, or how harmful systems can influence behaviour, learning, and participation online. Another major challenge is digital inequality. Many communities still face unequal access to safe digital infrastructure, quality digital literacy, and opportunities to meaningfully participate in conversations shaping emerging technologies. At the same time, many AI systems are developed outside our contexts and often fail to reflect local languages, cultural realities, and the lived experiences of children and young people in Africa. This risks deepening exclusion and reinforcing existing inequalities. However, there are also important opportunities. AI has the potential to strengthen education access, innovation, child protection systems, accessibility, research, and youth participation when developed responsibly and inclusively. Across the region, young people are already demonstrating creativity, leadership, and innovation in digital spaces, but they require supportive policies, ethical governance frameworks, and meaningful inclusion in decision-making processes. I also see growing momentum for cross-sector collaboration among governments, civil society, youth networks, educators, and international organisations. This creates an opportunity to shape governance approaches that are more rights-based, locally informed, and globally connected. For countries like Kenya and many others in the Global South, the future of AI governance will depend on whether inclusion, equity, and human dignity are prioritised from the beginning, rather than addressed after harms have already occurred.

The AI Dialogue can play an important role in building a more inclusive, coordinated, and people-centred approach to global AI governance. At a time when AI is developing faster than many national policies and accountability systems, international cooperation is no longer optional: it is necessary. From my perspective, one of the most valuable roles the Dialogue can play is creating a trusted global space where governments, civil society, young people, academia, the private sector, and international organisations can engage as partners rather than as competing interests. AI governance discussions should not be limited to technical or political actors alone. Communities most affected by digital inequalities and online harms, especially children and young people, must also be part of shaping the future of AI governance. The Dialogue can also help bridge global gaps in knowledge, policy capacity, and representation. Many countries in the Global South are still navigating rapidly changing technologies with limited resources, regulatory experience, or meaningful participation in global decision-making spaces. International cooperation can support shared learning, capacity-building, and the development of governance approaches that are both globally connected and locally relevant. Another important role of the Dialogue is promoting common principles grounded in human rights, child protection, transparency, accountability, and equity. While countries may adopt different governance models, there should still be shared commitments that protect human dignity and prevent harmful uses of AI across borders. I also believe the Dialogue can help strengthen collaboration beyond governments by encouraging partnerships between youth networks, civil society organisations, educators, researchers, and technology developers. Sustainable AI governance will require continuous engagement, not one-time conversations. Ultimately, the AI Dialogue has the opportunity to move global discussions beyond competition and toward collective responsibility. If it creates space for meaningful participation, shared accountability, and practical cooperation, it can become an important foundation for fairer and more inclusive AI governance worldwide.

The AI Dialogue should build upon existing international, regional, and community-driven initiatives that are already advancing conversations around human rights, child protection, digital inclusion, and responsible technology governance. Many valuable frameworks and partnerships already exist, but they often operate in fragmented spaces with limited coordination between global policy discussions and grassroots realities. From my perspective, the Dialogue should connect with ongoing work within the UN system, child rights and digital safety initiatives, youth-led networks, civil society coalitions, and regional digital governance efforts across Africa and the Global South. It should also engage existing platforms working on online safety, digital literacy, ethical innovation, and youth participation in technology governance. These spaces already hold important experience, local knowledge, and practical insights that can strengthen global AI governance discussions. The Dialogue should particularly build on initiatives that centre human rights, child rights, and inclusive digital participation. Too often, technology governance conversations remain disconnected from the lived experiences of children, educators, parents, and communities directly affected by emerging technologies. Strengthening these connections would make governance approaches more grounded, responsive, and people-centred. One important added value the AI Dialogue could bring is creating stronger coordination across sectors and regions. Many organisations are addressing similar challenges independently, yet there are limited spaces for sustained collaboration, shared learning, and collective accountability. The Dialogue could help bridge these gaps by bringing together governments, civil society, academia, industry, and youth networks within a more inclusive global framework. The AI Dialogue also has the opportunity to amplify perspectives that are often underrepresented in global governance spaces, particularly those from the Global South and young people themselves. By connecting existing efforts rather than duplicating them, the Dialogue can help strengthen global cooperation while ensuring that governance approaches remain locally informed, rights-based, and future-oriented. Ultimately, its added value will depend on its ability to move from discussion toward meaningful collaboration, inclusion, and practical action.

The effectiveness of the AI Dialogue will depend greatly on how meaningfully different stakeholders are able to participate, collaborate, and influence outcomes. AI governance cannot succeed through government or industry engagement alone. It requires a genuinely multi-stakeholder and globally inclusive approach. Governments can contribute by creating enabling policy environments, supporting rights-based governance frameworks, and ensuring that national AI strategies reflect public interest, inclusion, and accountability. Technology companies and developers also have an important responsibility to engage transparently, share knowledge, strengthen safeguards, and place ethical considerations and human rights at the centre of innovation. Civil society organisations, educators, researchers, and community practitioners can contribute grounded perspectives from lived realities, particularly around online safety, digital inequalities, education, child protection, and the societal impact of AI systems. Youth-led organisations and young people themselves should also be recognised as active contributors rather than passive participants. Young people bring valuable experiences, innovation, and insight into how AI is shaping education, participation, wellbeing, and digital culture globally. In terms of structure, the AI Dialogue should prioritise accessibility, diversity, and sustained engagement. The process should not be limited to high-level discussions alone. It should include regional consultations, youth engagement spaces, cross-sector working groups, and opportunities for grassroots voices to meaningfully contribute to policy discussions. I would also recommend a format that combines global dialogue with local and regional input mechanisms to ensure broader representation, particularly from the Global South. Hybrid participation options, multilingual accessibility, and simplified engagement formats will also be important in reducing participation barriers. Most importantly, the Dialogue should move beyond symbolic inclusion and create clear pathways for accountability, follow-up, and continued collaboration between meetings. Participants should be able to see how their contributions influence outcomes and future actions. If designed inclusively, the AI Dialogue can become a trusted space for collective learning, shared responsibility, and more people-centred global AI governance.

From my experience working in youth leadership and child rights spaces, one of the most missing perspectives is that of children and young people themselves. Young people are among the most active users of digital technologies and are directly affected by algorithmic systems, online safety risks, misinformation, surveillance, and emerging forms of digital exclusion. Yet their participation in AI governance spaces is often limited to symbolic representation rather than meaningful engagement in decision-making processes. Communities from the Global South are also significantly underrepresented. Many countries are navigating the rapid expansion of AI without equal access to resources, infrastructure, technical expertise, or influence within global governance conversations. As a result, policies and governance approaches are often shaped without fully reflecting local realities, cultural contexts, languages, and developmental priorities. Other underrepresented voices include educators, grassroots organisations, persons with disabilities, rural communities, indigenous communities, and practitioners working directly on digital safety, education, and community wellbeing. These groups bring practical lived experiences that are essential for building governance frameworks that are inclusive and responsive. Inclusion should go beyond invitations to participate. It requires intentional structures that enable meaningful engagement and influence. This includes accessible consultation processes, multilingual participation, youth advisory mechanisms, regional dialogues, community-led engagement spaces, and investment in digital literacy and capacity-building for underrepresented groups. I also believe global AI governance spaces should recognise lived experience as a form of expertise alongside technical and policy expertise. People closest to the realities of digital harms and inequalities should have a meaningful role in shaping solutions. A truly inclusive AI governance process must not only speak about affected communities, but actively create space for them to shape the future of AI alongside other stakeholders.

To foster meaningful and dynamic engagement, the AI Dialogue should move beyond traditional conference-style discussions and create more participatory, accessible, and people-centred engagement formats. Many global dialogues become dominated by formal statements and technical language, which can unintentionally exclude young people, grassroots organisations, and communities without specialised policy backgrounds. One innovative approach would be intergenerational dialogue sessions that intentionally bring together young people, policymakers, civil society, researchers, educators, and technology developers in shared discussions rather than separating them into parallel spaces. This would help create more balanced and grounded conversations around the real-life impact of AI across different communities and generations. The Dialogue could also include regional community labs or participatory workshops where participants collaboratively explore practical AI governance challenges and locally relevant solutions. These smaller interactive spaces may encourage more honest engagement, creativity, and exchange of lived experiences than large plenary sessions alone. Another important format could be youth-led and community-led dialogue spaces where underrepresented groups help shape discussions directly rather than only responding to pre-designed agendas. This would strengthen ownership, inclusion, and diversity of perspectives within the process. Digital engagement mechanisms should also be prioritised to expand participation beyond those able to attend physically. Hybrid consultations, multilingual online forums, interactive digital polling, collaborative policy drafting sessions, and open feedback platforms could help include voices from different regions, particularly from the Global South. Storytelling and lived-experience sessions could also make the Dialogue more human-centred by highlighting how AI is already affecting education, online safety, mental wellbeing, participation, and everyday life for different communities. These approaches can help ground technical discussions in real societal experiences. Most importantly, engagement formats should prioritise accessibility, inclusion, and continuous participation beyond one-time events. People are more likely to contribute meaningfully when they feel heard, respected, and able to influence outcomes rather than simply observe discussions.

From my perspective working in youth leadership and child rights spaces, some of the most valuable examples are those that combine human rights principles with practical implementation approaches. One important example is the UNICEF "Policy Guidance on AI for Children," which provides concrete recommendations on child-centred AI, including safety, privacy, inclusion, fairness, and accountability for children in AI systems. It is especially valuable because it recognises children not only as technology users, but as rights holders whose wellbeing should shape AI governance approaches. Another strong example is the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, which has helped establish globally recognised principles around human rights, transparency, diversity, human oversight, and ethical governance. Its emphasis on translating ethical principles into actionable policy areas is particularly important for countries still developing governance frameworks. The OECD AI Principles also provide an important model for international cooperation by promoting trustworthy, transparent, and accountable AI while encouraging interoperability between governance approaches across countries. I also believe there is growing value in participatory and community-informed governance approaches. Research and emerging practice increasingly show that effective AI governance requires multi-stakeholder participation, continuous oversight, and mechanisms that connect policy principles to implementation and accountability. What these examples demonstrate is that effective AI governance is not only about regulation, but also about inclusion, collaboration, accountability, and protecting human dignity. For many countries in the Global South, these frameworks can provide useful foundations while still allowing governance approaches to reflect local realities, cultures, and developmental priorities.