Abstract

The concept of the commons has been contested by Indigenous scholars who make note that these “common” spaces are on stolen Indigenous lands (Kidd, 2020). Evoking the commons without upholding Indigenous sovereignty reproduces what the commons seeks to disrupt as settler colonialism advances the structuring logics of capitalism (Dorries et al., 2022). Despite the expansion of “the commons” to the digital world, there remain corporeal dimensions that intersect with Indigenous sovereignty. This paper asserts that the digital commons is land-based (Caranto Morford & Ansloos, 2021) and any consideration for a utopian digital commons must critically engage with Indigenous sovereignty and jurisdiction. This paper presents the “Working Toward Self-Determination Together” research project which utilized the digital commons to connect within and between Indigenous territories to forward Indigenous data governance. It focuses on the collaborative work of Mayan Yucatán scholars and community group which created the Canicab Charter and educational videos to support its implementation.

Keywords

Indigenous Data Governance, Mayan Research, Digital Commons, Settler Colonialism

“U waats’ ek t’aane’ yaanu muuk” (“Our word has value.” Canicab Charter, 2023).

Despite its popular use, the term “data commons” is an ambiguous one (Maanen et al., 2024). Generally, it refers to communities that collectively and sustainably govern data and relationships and presumes that collective management and governance of data and knowledge will result in societal benefits (Maanen et al., 2024). However, this definition ranges from “thin” understandings focused on solving problems together to “thicker” definitions which recognize shared languages, political beliefs and culture as components of a common (Mannen et al., 2024, p. 3). These varying definitions have implications for who in society will benefit. In the former, there is no acknowledgement of the social, political, cultural, economic and historical distinctions between individuals, communities and nations, promoting universal tendencies that mask social and racial hierarchies and reinscribe dominant power relations (Mannen et al., 2024).

Couldry and Mejias (2019) assert that data colonialism is a new and distinct form of colonialism in the 21st century through which the same ideologies and practices of extractivism central to other forms of colonialism are now occurring in the digital world. “Thin” notions of the commons have been contested and critiqued by Indigenous scholars who make note that these “common” spaces are in fact stolen Indigenous lands (Kidd, 2020). This statement operates on two levels. First, there is an assertion that Indigenous jurisdiction expands into digital space, and secondly it acknowledges how there are corporeal dimensions to the digital space that intersect with Indigenous sovereignty, rights and land title. The hashtag #NoDAPL (No Dakota Access Pipeline) serves as an example, with the digital world having significant impacts on the awareness and mobilization of the Indigenous rights movement in Standing Rock (Caranto Morford & Ansloos, 2021; Kidd, 2020).

Currently, digital spaces which have real implications for Indigenous peoples and lands are not equitable. Indigenous peoples are vastly underrepresented in the governance and creation of digital materials and spaces. Carroll and colleagues (2021) refer to this as a “paradox of scarcity and abundance.” There is a lack of data generated, controlled, and accessed by Indigenous peoples that align with Indigenous ontologies, rights, and interests whilst there is an abundance of data on Indigenous peoples controlled by settler states (Carroll et al., 2021; Rainie et al., 2017, p. 2).

The evocation of the commons, without upholding Indigenous sovereignty and jurisdiction, nor acknowledging racial oppression, serves to advance that which the commons seek to disrupt as settler colonialism normalizes and inscribes the necessary structuring logics of capitalism (Dorries et al., 2022). This paper asserts that the digital commons is land-based (Caranto Morford & Ansloos, 2021); thus, any consideration for a utopian digital commons must critically engage with Indigenous data sovereignty – the process of managing data and information in a manner that is consistent with the laws, practices, and customs of the nation in which it is situated (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016, p. 39).

Answering the call for solution-based submissions, this paper presents the “Working Toward Self-Determination Together: Indigenous Research and Data Governance in Ecuador, Mexico and Canada” project which utilized the digital commons as a place to connect within and between Indigenous territories for the purpose of forwarding Indigenous data sovereignty. To begin, this paper expands upon the interweaving of digital spaces with other structures of settler colonialism and the concept of digital spaces as land based. Next, key activities from the Yucatán, Mexico hub of the project led by Mayan scholars and activists are presented and discussed: in particular, the Canicab Charter and the video “Abuse of Trust”.  The Charter is a declaration by Mayan scholars and allies that stipulates how research is to be conducted in Mayan territory due to ongoing practices of extractivist research. The video is part of a series of videos produced in Mayan, Spanish and English developed as an educational tool to support Mayan peoples assert their data sovereignty rights. The Charter and video serve as two examples of the infrastructure needed to construct a “thick” digital commons.

The Digital Commons, Land, and Settler Colonialism

Building upon the work of Dene scholar Glen Coulthard, Kidd (2020) asserts that any redistributive counter strategy to capitalist systems must recognize Indigenous peoples as title holders of vast territories of settler states, and the ongoing dispossession Indigenous peoples have experienced while settler states continue to occupy, control and benefit from their territories. Evoking the commons without recognizing Indigenous sovereignty and colonial dispossession undermines what the commons proclaims it wants to disrupt, as settler colonialism creates and normalizes the necessary structuring logics and circumstances of capitalism (Coulthard, 2014; Dorries et al., 2022). 

A capitalist system must separate Indigenous peoples from their lands to extract resources from these lands and ultimately accumulate wealth (Dorries et al., 2022). Settler colonialism provides the means and justification for this extraction and wealth generation as it seeks to destroy and replace Indigenous peoples and their life systems for the purpose of securing settler sovereignty and land title over Indigenous territories (Wolfe, 2006). Settler colonialism operates as a structure, seeking to destroy and replace Indigenous peoples through several interwoven strategies including dehumanization and racialization, dispossession, assimilation, physical erasure, and the appropriation of Indigeneity (Wolfe, 2006).

Indigenous knowledges are increasingly sought after by the West. The 33rd session of the UNESCO’s (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) General Conference (2005) acknowledged the importance of Indigenous knowledges as a source of immaterial and material wealth and the need to guarantee their protection in an adequate manner (Canicab Charter, 2023). The digital world gives way to a new form of colonialism and opportunity for capitalist expansion as it seeks to mine and extract Indigenous data and knowledge for capital gain (Couldry & Mejias, 2019).

Although data colonialism constitutes a new form of colonialism it relies on the same interwoven logics and strategies of settler colonialism. Firstly, historical processes of dispossession of land formalized through a series of historical Papal Bulls, or formal statements from the Pope, asserted that Indigenous territories were Terra Nullius or vacant land (Assembly of First Nations (AFN), 2018). The naturalization of Indigenous land as vacant because Indigenous land occupation and usage did not mirror that of Europeans is rooted in the presumed racial superiority of the European Christian peoples and continues to serve as a source of settler state legitimacy and land title (AFN, 2018).

They point to three types of extractive rationalities that render Indigenous knowledges and data -like Indigenous land – as “open”, “just there” and a resource for extraction (p. 337).  The first is social rationalities which treats the labor that contributes to data extraction as sharing or of no value. The second is practical rationality which frames the extractors of the data as the only ones with the ability to process the data. The third rationality is political in nature, positioning society as the beneficiary of the extractors’ efforts (Couldry & Mejias, 2019).

“Thin” versions of the commons encompass all three rationalities. The centrality of collectivism in Indigenous worldviews and knowledge systems is erroneously interpreted as signalling that Indigenous knowledges and data are free and is used to justify building a digital commons (Christen, 2005). Moreover, presumed racial superiority denies Indigenous data governance protocols and processes despite the existence of Indigenous-based infrastructure to create and distribute knowledge and data that are distinct from “thin” notions of the commons (Kidd, 2020). For example, Christen (2005) contests the notion of free Indigenous data, explaining that Indigenous knowledge networks are often built on a “demand” sharing basis whereby knowledge is created and distributed within a clear framework of accountability that includes protocols such as the acknowledgement of past producers (p. 33). Similarly, Kidd (2020) recorded evidence of clear restrictions, expectations and obligations regarding land and data jurisdiction at Standing Rock despite it being an ‘open’ movement. The denial of Indigenous data governance protocols, such as the above examples, enables those who control and contribute to “thin” commons to process common data, further justifying and legitimizing the appropriation of Indigenous knowledges and data. 

“Thin” forms of digital commons are based also on the assumption of societal benefit. This justification is reminiscent of the “civilization” project whereby humanity was supposed to benefit from historical colonialism (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). Yet, research suggests that the imposition of technologies can reinforce an imbalanced relation of power when it does not allow for self-determination (Guerrero Millán et al., 2024). Akin to settler colonialism, the extractive rationalities of data colonialism are dehumanizing, exploitative, working to subjugate Indigenous peoples and reinscribe land dispossession and colonial violence (AFN, 2018; Enkiwe-Abayao, 2010; Gobo, 2011; Ray, 2012). Indigenous data sovereignty is an integral part of self determination and nation building (Figueroa Rodríguez, 2020; FNIGC, 2019; Walter & Suina, 2019) because it ensures access to relevant and representative data that informs the identification of problems, development and prioritization of solutions, decision-making, advocacy, and diplomacy for nations (Rainie et al., 2017). When Indigenous knowledges and data are not governed by Indigenous peoples, they are easily consumed, misrepresented and manipulated, serving the interests of the settlers and the state. For example, Shulist and Pedri-Spade (2022) discuss how “free” and “open” access to online digital spaces for language and cultural revitalization have been co-opted by settlers to support false claims of Indigeneity so that they can take up resources. 

Wolfe (2006) argues that the ultimate form of settler colonialism is the process of becoming. By claiming Indigeneity, not only do settler states maintain distinctiveness from their once parent colonies (e.g. Spain, England etc.) but they also complete the erasure of Indigenous peoples. Naturalizing settler state belonging paired with the settler claim of distinctiveness from the parent colony creates the ideal circumstances to claim land title and secure state sovereignty. In the example provided by Shulist and Pedri-Spade (2022), “pretendians” (settlers pretending to be Indigenous) are consuming this “free” knowledge and data to forward their own personal wealth and careers which has real consequences on Indigenous peoples. Specifically, Indigenous peoples are being dispossessed from Indigenous spaces, as they are being excluded from decision-making roles, prestigious positions, and as grant recipients. This provides an example of how a digital commons without recognition of Indigenous data sovereignty supports a capitalist system as cultural and language resources are positioned as resources to be extracted and utilized to generate further power and wealth by settlers.

The tangible links between data colonialism and settler colonialism have also been acknowledge by the Masewal people in Puebla Mexico (Guerrero Millán et al., 2024). Guerrero Millán and colleagues (2024) found that Masewal peoples conceptualized data and data governance as part of a greater process of making sense of themselves within their territories and were very cognizant of data governance as a new site of colonialism and face of capitalism. The Masewal peoples assert that technology is not abstract but rather connected and augmented to their immediate territory and livelihoods, interrelated and embedded in material contexts. They see how data and technology can be a direct threat to their language, culture and lands (Guerrero Millán et al., 2024).

The Indigenous Data Sovereignty Movement

Motivated by the ongoing loss of territories, epistemicide, linguicide, and genocide, Indigenous peoples have mobilized to assert their sovereignty and rights (Gonzales & Husain, 2016). This has resulted in more global recognition, including the drafting of the 2007 United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (Russo Carroll, 2020). UNDRIP affirms Indigenous peoples right to be self-determining (Russo Carroll, 2020) and asserts that any doctrines, policies and/or practices based on advancing superiority on the basis of national original, race, religious, ethnic or cultural difference are racist, morally condemnable, scientifically false, legally invalid and socially unjust. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) also includes a similar statement of denouncement (AFN, 2018).

Despite the ongoing assaults on Indigenous sovereignty, Indigenous Peoples around the globe retain their rights to self-determine their forms of collective governance (Russo Carroll et al., 2020). Included in the right of Indigenous self determination is Indigenous data sovereignty. Indigenous peoples have the right to control and govern their Indigenous knowledge systems (AFN, n.d.) and to exercise control over their data (Russo Carroll, 2020). In addition to UNDRIP and ICERD, international declarations such as the Mātaatua Declaration and Julayinbul Statement also acknowledge this right (Russo Carroll, 2020). 

The problematic of lack of data sovereignty by Indigenous peoples has been brought to the forefront by Indigenous peoples who recognise the need to rectify this condition (Enkiwe-Abayao, 2010). Since these international declarations were made public, global networks have emerged to advance data sovereignty rights such as the Global Indigenous Data Alliance and the Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group of the Research Data Alliance. Networks such as these and others have resulted in the creation of principled approaches and additional resources to forward Indigenous data governance. For example, in July 2015, Indigenous organizations, government personnel and Indigenous scholars from Canada, Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States participated in a workshop to identify and develop an agenda that leveraged international instruments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). The Indigenous Data Sovereignty interest group designed the international principles of Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility and Ethics referred to as the ‘CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance’ (Carroll et al., 2021; Russo Carrroll et al., 2020). These principles develop a standard for data governance whereby Indigenous data should result in tangible benefits and equitable outcomes for Indigenous peoples through data processes that are inclusive, innovative, and work to improve governance and citizen engagement (Carroll et al., 2021). These alliances challenge the containment of data governance to Indigenous/nation state logics and address the imbalance of representation and dialogue of Indigenous peoples on the international research stage (Layman & Kim, 2021). Through the work that they are doing, they have begun to articulate the interrelationship between the global and local in respect to Indigenous data governance.

Local Indigenous data governance movements are also underway. Indigenous peoples have trained their own practitioners of research and data governance to assert Indigenous data sovereignty (Porsanger, 2010). For example, while in Latin America there have not been substantial initiatives to assert digital sovereignty, Indigenous peoples are among those leading the way, including Indigenous communities in Oaxaca, Mexico who have constructed an autonomous telecommunication network (Lehuedé, 2024). In another example, the communications coop, Radio Tosepan Limakxtum of the Tosepan Titataniske Union of Cooperatives created in the 1970’s by the Masewal people in the state of Puebla Mexico has undertaken work to reclaim their data governance authority by building and broadcasting their own network which is rooted in their own Indigenous knowledge systems. Yet, while the capacity of Indigenous nations to control their data has increased considerably, the movement to reclaim Indigenous data sovereignty remains in its early stages (Figueroa Rodriguez, 2021). Indigenous data sovereignty, in many cases is unexercised, and remains aspirational (Diaz-Rio, Dion & Leonard, 2020).

The “Working Toward Self-Determination Together: Indigenous Research and Data Governance in Ecuador, Mexico and Canada” Project

The “Working Toward Self-Determination Together” project began as a collaboration between Indigenous scholars, community and organizational representatives, knowledge holders, youth and allies in Mexico, Canada and Ecuador. The purpose of the collaboration was to share and strengthen local Indigenous expressions of self-determination in research and data management.

To begin the project, a 3-day trilingual (English, Kichwa and Spanish) online gathering was held in April 2021 that brought together people in each of the respective regions. The gathering was organized by the lead author and a settler colleague with input from the other regions. The main objectives of the gathering were to determine if commonalities existed between locales and, if so, to garner interest in developing a network and potential partnerships. The gathering consisted of prayer and song, a panel of Indigenous peoples working in grassroots and organizational spaces from each of the regions to advance data governance, a keynote on archival research, a workshop on The First Nations Principles of Ownership, Control, and Possession (commonly known as OCAP^®) delivered by the First Nations Information Governance Centre, and three open dialogue sessions. The dialogue sessions were guided by the broad themes of “Identifying the Need,” “Envisioning Indigenous Self-Determination in Research,” and “Moving Forward Together.” To close the final session, one of the co-organizers of the gathering asked those in attendance to continue working with her and offered tobacco. Offering tobacco followed the protocol of the Anishinaabek upon whose territory the host site was located and the affiliate nation of the individual offering the tobacco. Individuals then had a chance to accept the tobacco, decline the tobacco, or to think about it more.

After the initial gathering, the Canadian (Anishinaabe-Northern Ontario) and Mexico (Mayan-Yucatán) hub continued to work together with the co-authors of this paper acting as site leads for each hub. The authors, joined by other members of the network, submitted a successful SSHRC Partnership Development Grant (Social Science and Humanities Research Council – Canada) to support their work, and the hubs coordinated together but functioned independently to support local Indigenous governance.

In 2022, the Anishinaabe site hosted a regional gathering of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA) focused on Indigenous data governance and, in 2023, hosted a stream of the Community Campus Exposition (C2U) conference in partnership with the Anishinaabe Keendaasiwin Institute. Members of the Mayan hub, including the paper co-author, attended the conference and hosted a workshop. Previous to this event, the Mayan hub held a community Tsikbal in Canicab, Yucatán where they developed the Canicab Charter on Data Governance Amongst Maya People. They also developed a series of educational resources to support Indigenous data governance and hosted a conference on Indigenous research in May 2024. Members of the Anishinaabe hub, including the lead author, attended the conference and hosted two workshops. The Canicab Charter and educational resources were officially launched at this conference. The next section of this paper presents and discusses the Canicab Charter and educational video “Abuse of Trust.” 

The Canicab Declaration 

On December 3, 2022, Mayan scholars, community organizers, ancestral knowledge holders and youth from the three states of the Yucatán peninsula (Yucatán, Campeche and Quintana Roo) gathered in Canicab to discuss how research was conducted in their territories. The scope of the discussions included challenges to conserving their way of life and the management of their own data when faced with outsiders from various educational institutions, civil organizations, and private and public institutions coming to their territory to impose their way of life and extract information. 

At the Tsikbal, many incidents of harmful research and data extraction processes were discussed. These included outsiders positioning themselves as rescuers or saviours of Mayan peoples and culture; a lack of transparency about who is collecting the data and how it is going to be used, including partnerships between non-governmental or public organizations and industry and government to serve the latter’s’ interests; situating oneself in proximity to Indigeneity to gain access to data by hiring local people in place of building relationships in community; a lack of transparency about how projects are being funded and how the funding is being utilized; and the extraction of cultural expressions including dolls and clothing for mass production.

These above actions constitute the three types of extractive rationalities that render Indigenous knowledges and data as resources for extraction (Couldry & Mejias, 2019, p. 337).  Social rationality, which treats the labour that contributes to data extraction as sharing or of no value, is present through the lack of transparency and accountability to Mayan peoples, mass production of Mayan cultural expressions and the use of local peoples to extract data. Practical rationality, or the framing of the extractors as the only ones with the ability to process the data, is present through outsiders positioning themselves as saviours or rescuers. Lastly, political rationality, or the positioning of society as the beneficiary of the extractors’ efforts, is present through partnerships between extractive industries and governments with public and not-for profit institutions who serve as the public image of various projects. Mayan peoples at the Tsikbal made clear linkages between these extractive rationalities and the impact on their livelihoods and lands including the misrepresentation of their commons – communities, cultures and lands – in the public sphere and the manipulation and use of their data to implement tourist and resource development projects.

Like many Indigenous peoples, those at the Tsikbal conceived of data as a collective resource and part of the Mayan commons. They agreed that it should be shared, but not that the data was open and a resource to be extracted. They discussed how knowledge exchange, done equitably, can ensure their knowledge systems remain intact; however, because of the widespread nature of data extractivism they did not support a ‘thin’ commons. They noted the urgency to create and assert data collection protocols and agreed that reciprocity and responsibility must underpin sharing. They concurred that Western tools for research ethics and data governance were ineffective and, in some cases, only served to protect institutions from legal recourse for extracting Indigenous knowledges and data.

The Canicab Charter was created to support the rejuvenation of Mayan data governance The Charter asserts that Mayan people must be the administrators and decision makers of their own data and Mayan protocols should be followed included the use of oral consent in the Mayan language. They noted that the community has a phrase that says: “u waats’ ek t’aane’ yaanu muuk” which translates to “our word has value.” (Canicab Charter, 2023, p. 7). Additionally, resources and infrastructure must be in place to support Mayan data governance including language translators for multi-lingual data agreements and community knowledge mobilization; the creation of a peninsular Maya organization to carry out audiovisual projects that benefit the community; and data monitors to implement a protocol whereby two members of the community are assigned to keep track of every researcher who wants to work with Mayan people in their territories. Moreover, the Canicab Charter also asserts that Mayan representatives must be involved in any research or data project at all stages from project idea to publications and expect recognition, reciprocity and decision-making powers regarding the use of their data. There must be transparency regarding intent, partnerships and funding, potential benefits, and ongoing data governance.

Educational Resources for Mayan Data Governance

To support the implementation of the Canicab Charter, the Mayan hub created a series of five educational videos on Mayan data governance that are now available in Mayan, Spanish, and English: “Abuse of Trust”, “Just a Label: Defending our Products”, “Plagiarism by Academics”, “Theft of Heritage Property”, and “Who Controls our Image?” The videos document recurring stories or case studies of data extraction as a way to enhance awareness of the current status of data collection and use, and to build community capacity to assert data governance. Overall, the videos support effective community knowledge mobilization. Shot in Yucatec Maya, the videos seek to prioritize the importance of the indigenous language. The participation of Mayan students in the video allows the Mayan people to identify with the authors and with similar experiences and supports building leadership in regard to Mayan data governance. The videos are intended as prompts to open up and encourage discussion and reflection about the topics on what the Mayan people can do in terms of controlling their data. A secondary purpose is for outsiders to also reflect on their practice in relation to research and data collection with Indigenous peoples.

This paper presents one of the videos, entitled “Abuse of Trust.” This video consists of two young Mayan men talking about a researcher, Frederik, who conducted research in their community. One says to the other that when he met Frederik, the researcher mentioned that he was doing research with him. The other man shared that, in fact, he had not worked with Frederik in a very long time and that he did not approve of the way that Frederik was conducting research. Frederick was not transparent about the purpose of the research and who he was doing research for and he did not return any results to the community. Working with Frederik had negatively impacted relationships he had within his own community, and it took him a long time to rebuild them. He warned the other man about Frederik who confirmed that Frederik is still behaving in this way. The video ends with some key expectations for outside researchers and reveals that both the men in the video are researchers themselves.

Like the Canicab Charter, this educational resource highlights how Mayan data is treated as open – or a resource for extraction – and demonstrates several extractive rationalities at play which forward the objectives of settler colonialism and capitalism. For example, the reveal at the end of the video that both the young men are researchers disrupts the practical rationality that outsiders are the only ones capable of data collection, use and governance. This renormalization of Indigenous peoples as researchers and data stewards disrupts colonial processes (Russo Carroll, Rodriguez-Lonebear & Martinez, 2019) and sets a foundation for community members to build an understanding of research and cultivate skills, which is essential to Indigenous data governance (Figueroa-Rodriquez, 2020; Walter & Suina, 2019).

Conclusion

Christen (2005) notes that “…Indigenous concerns do not align neatly with any one agenda” (p. 328).  Although at a first glance the notion of the commons may appear to align with the prevalent ontology of communal ownership within Indigenous communities, a conflation of the two can perpetuate settler colonial logics and uphold the capitalist systems that the commons should defy. Land theft is driven by extraction, development, and capitalist imperatives and further enabled by a racist erasure of Indigenous law and jurisdiction (The Yellowhead Institute, 2019, p. 8). Thin conceptions of digital commons that do not recognize Indigenous data protocols and the right to data governance have negative corporeal implications for Indigenous livelihoods and lands. Indigenous knowledge systems cannot be detached from the peoples and the lands from which they emerge (Gonzales & Husain, 2016, p. 277). It is imperative that any utopian vision for the commons be one that is land-based, operating on and respecting the jurisdiction of the territories of Indigenous peoples. Doing so can provide profound insights for all people on how to construct a more just and sustainable world couched in reciprocity, non-exploitation and respectful co-existence between peoples and with the land (Coulthard, 2014).

Although there is much to still do, Indigenous led efforts are underway to counter the colonial mentality that Indigenous data is “just there” (Couldry & Mejias, 2019, p. 5). The “Working Toward Self-Determination Together” project was organized regionally to support local efforts by the Anishinaabe hub in Northern Ontario and the Mayan hub in the Yucatán Peninsula. This paper has focused on the Indigenous data governance work of the Mayan hub which resulted in the creation of the Canicab Charter and the short education video “Abuse of Trust” which is part of a series of educational resources to advance awareness of Indigenous data governance. The Canicab Charter and “Abuse of Trust” video supports the transmission and reinvigoration of Indigenous knowledge governance among Indigenous peoples locally to increase capacity “on [their] own terms and for [their] own purposes” (Porsanger, 2010, p. 433). 

While the Charter and the video resources are locally focused, they are part of a broader movement of Indigenous data governance. Rainie and colleagues (2017) contend that Indigenous data governance must grow from meaningful partnerships and collaborations that seek to build up local Indigenous governance structures as well as sharing and leveraging resources and strategies. The Charter and videos are consistent with the directives of networks and scholars within the Indigenous data sovereignty movement. This includes the CARE principles which call for Indigenous peoples to share Collective benefit, have Authority over their data, and for Responsibility and Ethics to underpin data governance. These principles will ensure that those working with Indigenous data share how those data are used to support Indigenous peoples’ self-determination and collective benefit and how Indigenous peoples’ rights and wellbeing remain the primary concern at all stages of the data life cycle and across the data ecosystem (Russo Carroll et al., 2022).  

References Cited

Assembly of First Nations (AFN). (January 2018). Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery. Ottawa, ON: AFN.

Canicab Charter on Data Governance Amongst Maya People. (May, 2023). Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Anishinaabe Kendaasiwin Institute & Lakehead University. 

Caranto Morford, A., & Ansloos, J. (2021). Indigenous sovereignty in digital territory: A qualitative study on land-based relations with #NativeTwitter. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 17(2), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801211019097

Carroll SR, Garba I, Plevel R, Small-Rodriguez D, Hiratsuka VY, Hudson M, & Garrison NA. (2022). Using Indigenous standards to implement the CARE Principles: Setting expectations through Tribal research codes. Frontiers in Genetics, 21;13:823309. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.823309.

Christen, K. (2005). Gone digital: Aboriginal remix and the cultural commons. International Journal of Cultural Property, 12, 315–345. doi:10.1017/S0940739105050186

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), 336-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632

Coulthard, G. (2014). Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. University of Minnesota Press.

Dorries, H., Hugill, D., & Tomiak, J. (2022). Racial capitalism and the production of settler colonial cities. Geoforum,132, 263-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.07.016.

Enkiwe-Abayao, L. (2010) Owning research and building force at the margins: Indigenous Peoples as agents of self-determined development, In. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Leah Enkiwe-Abayao and Raymond de Chavez (Eds.), Towards an Alternative Development Paradigm: Indigenous Peoples’ Self-Determined Development. Tebtebba Foundation. (pp. 493-512).

Figueroa Rodríguez, O.L. (2020). Indigenous policy and Indigenous data in Mexico: Context, challenges and perspectives. In, M. Walter, T. Kukutai, S. Russo Carroll & D. Rodriguez Lonebear (Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy. Routledge. (pp. 130-147).

First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). (2019). First Nations data sovereignty in Canada. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 35(47), 47-69. doi:10.3233/SJI-180478

Gonzales, T., & Husain, M. (2016). Indigenous autonomy, community-based research, and development aid: Sumaq kawsay in three epistemic scenarios. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 12(3), 266-281. https://doi.org/10.20507/AlterNative.2016.12.3.5

Guerrero Millán, C. Nissen, B. & Pschetz, L. (2024). Cosmovision ff data: An Indigenous approach to technologies for self-determination. Florian Floyd Mueller, Penny Kyburz, Julie R Williamson, Corina Sas, Max L Wilson, Phoebe Toups Dugas & Irina Shklovski (Eds.), CHI’24: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (pp. 1-13).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642598

Kidd, D. (2020). Standing rock and the Indigenous commons, Popular Communication, 18(3), 233–247. doi: 10.1080/15405702.2020.1781862

Kukutai, T & Taylor, J. (2016). Data sovereignty for Indigenous peoples: Current practice and future needs. In, Tahu Kukutai & John Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty Toward an Agenda. Australian National University. (pp. 1-22).

Layman, E. W., & Kim, E. A. (2021). Glocal brokers and critical discourse analysis: Conceptualizing glocality in Indigenous education research and reform. Global Education Review, 8 (2-3), 62-80.

Lehuedé, S. (2024). An alternative planetary future? Digital sovereignty frameworks and the decolonial option. Big Data & Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231221778

Porsanger, J. (2010). Self-determination and Indigenous research: Capacity building on our own terms. In, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Leah Enkiwe-Abayao and Raymond de Chavez (Eds.), Towards an Alternative Development Paradigm: Indigenous Peoples’ Self-Determined Development. Tebtebba Foundation. (pp. 433-446).

Rainie, S.C., Schultz, J. L., Briggs, E., Riggs, P., & Palmanteer-Holder, N. L. (2017). Data as a strategic resource: Self-determination, governance, and the data challenge for Indigenous nations in the United States. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.1

Russo Carroll, S., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D. & Martinez, A. (2019). Indigenous data governance: Strategies from United States Native Nations. Data Science Journal, 18: doi:10.5334/dsj-2019-031.

Russo Carroll, S.R., Herczog, E., Hudson, M. et al. (2021). Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures. Science Data 8, 108 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0

Shulist, S & Pedri-Spade, C. (2022). Lingua nullius: Indigenous language learning and revitalization as sites for settler-colonial violence. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 78(4), 271-288.

Smith, D. E. (2016). Governing data and data for governance: The everyday practice of Indigenous sovereignty. In, Tahu Kukutai & John Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty Toward an Agenda. Australian National University. (pp. 117-135). 

van Maanen, G., Ducuing, C., & Fia, T. (2024). Data commons.  Internet Policy Review, 13(2), p. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.2.1748

Walter, M & Suina, M. (2019) Indigenous data, Indigenous methodologies and Indigenous data sovereignty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(3), 233-243. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228

Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240.

Yellowhead Institute (2019). Land Back: A Yellowhead Institute Red Paper. https://redpaper.yellowheadinstitute.org/