Advocacy: It is acknowledged that youth movements have been drivers of the environmental justice discourse, however in Internet Governance spaces, youth have not been as active in the discussion. However, the call to action can only be realised with resources for campaigns etc., so these movements often leave out marginalised groups.
Regulation: There was agreement that regulation is a key factor in fostering sustainability, so legislative bodies should be take into account scientific findings, as well as civil society advocacy. It was also agreed on that political decision makers have not yet fully formed action plans, or the ones that are put out are not ambitious enough given the urgency of environmental action.
Innovation: It was a call to the private sector to foster innovation that is environmentally friendly and fair in order to pro-actively address environmental challenges. It was also agreed on that businesses and start-ups should be active parts of policy deliberation, as they are the stakeholders to then implement measures. It was concluded that the Internet Governance approach to multi-stakeholder processes can be a model for digital sustainability.
Eurocentricity: It was brought up by the panel that, currently, the discourse around environmental justice, and digital sustainability specifically, is dominated by a euocentric focus. However, Asian and African initiatives were presented, and there was agreement that there needs to be more interregional policy dialogue in order not to reinforce inequalities.
Transfer: Overall, there was agreement that both youth movements for environmental justice, and Internet Governance fora address different stakeholders. In order to implement digital sustainability in Internet governance spaces, it requires clear advocacy, effective communication, and the inclusion of scientific stakeholders. Youth movements for sustainability, such as Fridays for Future, should be invited to participate in multistakeholder environments such as the IGF.