Indigenous Knowledges and Data Governance Protocol — Indigenous Innovation Initiative

Indigenous Data Sovereignty (DDN3-A11)

This article explores Indigenous data sovereignty, identifies some of the data-related challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples and highlights the work done to overcome these challenges.

Treating data like land — data sovereignty in the AI age - ICT

Artificial intelligence front and center at North America’s largest Indigenous tech conference

Animikii: Indigenous Technology for an Equitable Future

Animikii empowers Indigenous communities with culturally informed technology solutions like Niiwin—our groundbreaking tool for Indigenous data sovereignty and community empowerment.

Solidarity Syllabus: Indigenous Peoples, Rematriation, and Resisting AI Data Centers — Solidarity Is

For this Solidarity Syllabus, we are learning alongside Indigenous organizers, leaders, and communities whose work offers important solidarity lessons and invitations for how we might understand land, water, sovereignty, and resistance to data centers.  Indigenous Peoples Day is observed

Indigenous Tech Circle | Indigenous-led Tech in Canada

Indigenous-led community connecting technologists, founders, investors, and changemakers across Canada — host of the largest Indigenous tech conference.

Preventing AI extractivism: the case for braiding indigenous data justice with ABS for stronger AI data governance

Artificial-intelligence systems are rapidly reproducing colonial extractivism by harvesting Indigenous linguistic, biometric, geospatial, and ecological data without consent, compensation, or accountability. Biotechnology offers a blueprint for curbing such practices: the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol obligate users of genetic resources to obtain Prior Informed Consent, negotiate Mutually Agreed Terms, and share benefits fairly. No comparable framework restrains the digital appropriation that underpins many AI products. Consequently, corporations and states monetize Indigenous knowledge systems under the banners of “open data” and “scientific neutrality,” eroding rights affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In response to this rising risk of AI extractivism, we make the case for a binding, sui generis ABS protocol for AI data governance. First, through a series of case studies we demonstrate that AI extraction mirrors the colonial and biopiracy controversies that originally triggered Access‑and‑Benefit‑Sharing (ABS) rules in biotechnology. Second, we translate those rules into a digital register by braiding two Indigenous data‑governance frameworks—OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession) and the CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics)—inside the ABS triad of consent, terms, and benefit‑sharing. The resulting model grounds technical safeguards in relational accountability and Indigenous legal orders. Such an instrument would compel transparent negotiations with Indigenous rights‑holders, assign enforceable authority over data across the AI lifecycle, and require equitable redistribution of the economic value generated by models trained on Indigenous data. Embedding ABS principles into AI governance offers a decolonial pathway that centers Indigenous epistemologies, promotes ethical foresight, and transforms AI from a vehicle of digital colonialism into a space for algorithmic justice.

A Polycentric Governance Lens on Data Infrastructures

Funding policies for data infrastructure promote open data sharing to drive positive social impact. However, concerns regarding the long-term management of data within and across distributed infrastructures can hinder data sharing. We draw upon the concept of polycentric governance to demonstrate how collaborative practices of data curation, in preparing and maintaining data for (future) sharing, provide a solid foundation for understanding data governance within data infrastructures. Based on a qualitative case study of a distributed ecological network, we investigate the conditions under which data are managed as a shared resource by local actors to ensure the long-term (re)usability of data. We contribute to CSCW by conceptualising data curation as a complex form of governance practice with multiple centres of decision-making, each of which operates with some degree of autonomy in data infrastructures. A polycentric governance lens on data infrastructures advances the CSCW conception of data curation as a collective governance practice that can cultivate a data democracy culture within and across organisations, empower individuals to be accountable for their data, and foster a mindset shift toward decentralised data governance.

Abundant intelligences: placing AI within Indigenous knowledge frameworks

The current trajectory of artificial intelligence development suffers from fundamental epistemological shortcomings, resulting in the systematic operationalization of bias against non-white, non-male, and non-Western peoples. We argue that these failings are, in part, the result of certain Western rationalist epistemologies that exclude many ways of knowing about the world, and therefore they cannot provide a sufficient foundation on which to adequately, robustly, and humanely conceptualize intelligence. We present a new research agenda, Abundant Intelligences, an Indigenous-led, Indigenous-majority international, interdisciplinary research program that imagines anew how to conceptualize and design artificial intelligence (AI) based on Indigenous knowledge (IK) systems. Abundant Intelligences draws on the rich plurality of Indigenous knowledge systems, bringing together diverse sets of thought, culture, and protocol together. We show IK systems provide one way to rebuild AI’s epistemological foundations and transform these tools’ current role in reinforcing colonial practices of exclusion, extraction, manipulation, and eradication into engines of abundance that enable us to care better for ourselves, our communities, and our world. Our proposition is to fully engage with AI to explore how different conceptions of intelligence could be embodied in these technologies. In this paper, we present the tenets of the research program in detail, account for our methodological approach, describe the impact and limitations, and conclude on a discussion of the implications of the program.

Awana Digital • Co-developing Technology for Social Justice

Awana Digital works in solidarity with Indigenous peoples to use technology to defend their rights and fight climate change.

Data Governance for Sustainable Digital Food Systems | DigiFood

Explore our research on agricultural data governance in Kenya, India, and Colombia. We aim to support civil society with a human-rights based approach to digital food systems. Join us in promoting equitable practices for sustainable agriculture.

Data Refusal from Below: A Framework for Understanding, Evaluating, and Envisioning Refusal as Design

Amidst calls for public accountability over large data-driven systems, feminist and indigenous scholars have developed refusal as a practice that challenges the authority of data collectors. However, because data affect so many aspects of daily life, it can be hard to see seemingly different refusal strategies as part of the same repertoire. Furthermore, conversations about refusal often happen from the standpoint of designers and policymakers rather than the people and communities most affected by data collection. In this article, we introduce a framework for data refusal from below —writing from the standpoint of people who refuse, rather than the institutions that seek their compliance. Because refusers work to reshape socio-technical systems, we argue that refusal is an act of design and that design-based frameworks and methods can contribute to refusal. We characterize refusal strategies across four constituent facets common to all refusal, whatever strategies are used: autonomy , or how refusal accounts for individual and collective interests; time , or whether refusal reacts to past harm or proactively prevents future harm; power , or the extent to which refusal makes change possible; and cost , or whether or not refusal can reduce or redistribute penalties experienced by refusers. We illustrate each facet by drawing on cases of people and collectives that have refused data systems. Together, the four facets of our framework are designed to help scholars and activists describe, evaluate, and imagine new forms of refusal.

The Shared Patterns of Indigenous Culture, Permaculture and Digital Commons | David Bollier

Rarely have I read an essay that knits together some very different commons with such wisdom and depth. Joline Blais' 2006 essay, “Indigenous Domain: Pilgrims, Permaculture and Perl,” is a wonderfully insightful analysis that reveals the underlying unity and logic of commons principles. Her piece appeared in Intelligent Agent (vol. 6, no. 2), published by the Inter-Society for the Electronic Arts.

Ecosystem Action Research

An initiative to facilitate cooperative, research-led innovation in the AT Protocol ecosystem

Intro_to_Awareness_and_Competency_in_Data_Governance

Thread 5 Introduction: ICT Awareness & Competency in Data Governance https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33004770035.html 1 May 4, 2021 Moore’s Law Prepared by: Ken Lazarus Ben Koo

Otipêy | Indigenous-Led Investment Platform

Indigenous-led investment platform delivering real returns and lasting impact. We design, build and manage funds that advance Indigenous economic self-determina

“Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management

Abstract Increasingly, fisheries researchers and managers seek or are compelled to “bridge” Indigenous knowledge systems with Western scientific approaches to understanding and governing fisheries. Here, we move beyond the all‐too‐common narrative about integrating or incorporating (too often used as euphemisms for assimilating) other knowledge systems into Western science, instead of building an ethic of knowledge coexistence and complementarity in knowledge generation using Two‐Eyed Seeing as a guiding framework. Two‐Eyed Seeing ( Etuaptmumk in Mi’kmaw) embraces “learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing, and to use both these eyes together, for the benefit of all,” as envisaged by Elder Dr. Albert Marshall. In this paper, we examine the notion of knowledge dichotomies and imperatives for knowledge coexistence and draw parallels between Two‐Eyed Seeing and other analogous Indigenous frameworks from around the world. It is set apart from other Indigenous frameworks in its explicit action imperative—central to Two‐Eyed Seeing is the notion that knowledge transforms the holder and that the holder bears a responsibility to act on that knowledge. We explore its operationalization through three Canadian aquatic and fisheries case‐studies that co‐develop questions, document and mobilize knowledge, and co‐produce insights and decisions. We argue that Two‐Eyed Seeing provides a pathway to a plural coexistence, where time‐tested Indigenous knowledge systems can be paired with, not subsumed by, Western scientific insights for an equitable and sustainable future.