Youth representatives from the Asia Pacific (APAC) region actively contributed to the WSIS+20 Review process throughout 2025. The final outcome document was adopted at the United Nations (UN) High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly on 16-17 December 2025 (Find out more about our consistent contributions throughout the process here).
Throughout the review process, the Informal Multistakeholder Sounding Board (IMSB) convened multiple rounds of virtual stakeholder consultations, inviting all stakeholders to provide targeted, paragraph-based comments on successive revisions of the outcome document.
During the Rev 1 consultation on 14 November, 2025, APAC youth representatives Ankita Rathi (NetMission.Asia) and Socheata Sokhachan (APAC Youth IGF) delivered oral interventions, establishing key advocacy positions on youth participation, connectivity equity, and environmental sustainability. (Find out more about the Rev 1 intervention here).
During the Rev 2 consultation on 8 December, 2025, APAC youth representatives reinforced these positions, with Sherry Shek (NetMission.Asia) and Phyo Thiri Lwin (Myanmar Youth IGF/Southeast Asia Youth IGF) emphasizing structural youth participation and environmental accountability.
The Rev 2 consultation was the final opportunity for multistakeholder input before adoption. Just eight days later, on 17 December 2025, the High-level Meeting of the UN General Assembly at the UN Headquarters in New York adopted The final outcome document (A/80/L.41) by consensus, marking the culmination of the WSIS+20 Review process.
This multi-round engagement demonstrates youth capacity to contribute substantively to global governance processes and shape commitments that will guide digital cooperation for years to come.
In this post:
- Youth Interventions in Rev 2 Multistakeholder Consultation – Summaries of the two oral statements delivered by APAC youth representatives
- APAC Youth Impact the outcome Document – Analysis of progress achieved and critical gaps that remain in the WSIS+20 Review Outcomes
- The Path Forward – What comes next for youth advocacy
Youth Interventions in Rev 2 Multistakeholder Consultation
Structural Youth Participation (Sherry Shek, NetMission.Asia)
Sherry Shek, Program Manager at NetMission.Asia, delivered an intervention recognizing both progress and persistent gaps in Rev 2 regarding youth participation in Internet Governance (IG). While welcoming the recognition of youth contributions and the significance of youth (Para 3, 98, 119) in Rev 2, she emphasized that youth participation cannot remain consultative.
The intervention called for three concrete additions:
- Strengthening the language to include youth as a stakeholder group (Para 89, 105)
- Adding youth alongside developing countries and under-represented groups, in calls for measures to ensure effective participation (Para 90)
- Strengthening language for supporting Youth IGFs, with better linkages to the main IGF processes (Para 102).
→ Read the full statement by Sherry Shek
Environmental Sustainability in Digital Governance (Phyo Thiri Lwin, Myanmar Youth IGF and SEA Youth IGF)
Phyo Thiri Lwin, coordinator of Myanmar Youth IGF and Southeast Asia Youth IGF (SEA Youth IGF), focused on environmental sustainability and the climate implications of digital technologies. While welcoming Rev 2’s recognition that digital technologies can support environmental sustainability, she stressed that these benefits must be paired with policies that meaningfully minimize environmental harms.
Her intervention addressed energy demands from digitalization, e-waste challenges, the need for circular economy approaches, and the importance of including youth in environmental policymaking—not as future leaders, but as present stakeholders whose lives will be shaped most directly by these decisions.
→ Read the full statement by Phyo Thiri Lwin
To learn more about our interventions, please check out the official recording of the interventions (Sherry Shek at 2:07:25, and Phyo Thiri Lwin at 47:15), and the meeting transcript.
APAC Youth Impact the Outcome Document
The final WSIS+20 outcome document reflects meaningful progress on youth recognition, connectivity and digital rights, and environmental sustainability, while drawing attention to persistent gaps in structural participation mechanisms, innovation governance, and dedicated investment.
Progress Achieved
Youth Recognition in WSIS Architecture
Youth are now explicitly recognized as a stakeholder in the core multistakeholder framework (Para 3), acknowledged as facing specific Information and Communication Technology (ICT) challenges (Para 12), and included as essential partners in ongoing implementation (Para 119). The recognition of “more than 170 national, regional and youth Internet Governance Forums” (Para 97) validates youth contributions to the IGF ecosystem. The Internet Governance Forum’s permanent status (Para 99) provides institutional stability that benefits youth participation. The inclusion of youth in these paragraphs was a direct result of consistent APAC Youth consultations during 2025.
Geographic and Digital Inclusion
The outcome addresses connectivity challenges in the most vulnerable geographies, explicitly naming “small island developing States” and “countries in situations of conflict” (Para 5). Digital divides across income levels, urban-rural gaps, and underserved communities receive sustained attention (Para 10, 21, 24), reflecting youth concerns about equitable connectivity.
Linguistic Accessibility and Cultural Diversity
Commitments to multilingualism and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) made it into the text of the final document, with explicit calls to ensure accessibility “including Indigenous Peoples and speakers of minority languages” (Para 28). This acknowledges linguistic diversity as essential to inclusive digital participation.
Environmental Sustainability
The document comprehensively addresses youth environmental concerns:
- Energy and water consumption from digitalization (Para 43)
- Electronic waste management with calls for improved data gathering and safe recycling (Para 45)
- Circular economy approaches with international standards for sustainable design (Para 46)
- Integrated environmental-digital policymaking (Para 47).
The environmental dimensions of digital governance received strong commitments in the document.
Critical Gaps Remain
Structural Participation Mechanisms
The most significant gap is the absence of concrete mechanisms to operationalize youth participation and leadership. While youth are recognized, the outcomes document does not call for institutionalization of youth participation, or commit to dedicated resources for Youth IGFs. Para 102’s call to “support national and regional initiatives” does not explicitly name Youth IGFs or establish the linkages to the main IGF that consistent youth interventions emphasized. Recognition exists, but the infrastructure to sustain it will require further effort.
Youth in Innovation and Technology Governance
Youth are absent from artificial intelligence (AI) governance and emerging technology spaces where their participation was explicitly requested. While the document addresses AI capacity-building broadly (Para 85-87) and data governance (Para 81-83), youth are not positioned as co-creators, researchers, or governance partners in these domains. Calls for youth inclusion in AI research initiatives, attention to language diversity and Indigenous knowledge systems in AI development, and youth roles in technology accountability frameworks were not recognized in the outcomes document.
Dedicated Investment and Capacity Building
The outcome document lacks specific commitments to youth initiatives. Calls for sustained investment in youth-led research and innovation, and youth-focused capacity building—particularly for environmental monitoring and sustainable digital practices—remain unaddressed.
Environmental Assessment and Accountability
While environmental concerns are acknowledged, the document does not adopt independent environmental impact assessment frameworks or commit to specific optimization targets for digital infrastructure energy efficiency. The accountability mechanisms to ensure follow-through on environmental commitments are not established.
Youth as Explicitly Named Underrepresented Group
Youth advocacy called for explicit inclusion alongside other underrepresented groups in Internet governance participation. While “underrepresented groups” and “underrepresented communities” appear (Para 89, 101), youth are not explicitly listed.
The Path Forward
Youth achieved meaningful recognition as a significant stakeholder group, and across connectivity, linguistic accessibility, and environmental sustainability. However, the structural transformation consistently called for across consultation rounds remains unrealized. Youth are named as stakeholders, but not institutionalized as partners. Youth concerns on access and environment are reflected, but youth roles in innovation governance are absent. The mechanisms to sustain youth participation are not yet established.
The multi-round youth engagement demonstrated youth capacity to shape global commitments. The implementation ahead will test whether these commitments translate into the structural mechanisms that youth interventions urged.