Indigenous data governance is not one-size-fits-all. Established frameworks can help Nations and organizations ask stronger questions about ownership, consent, access, responsibility, transparency, and benefit. But each framework must be interpreted through Indigenous laws, values, cultural protocols, and governance systems. This resource introduces key frameworks that can support more accountable decisions about Indigenous data and AI.
Frameworks for Indigenous Data Governance and AI
What Are Indigenous Data Governance Frameworks and How Are They Used on Turtle Island?
Indigenous Nations and organizations implement Indigenous data governance through frameworks that consist of principles. Established frameworks provide a tested foundation, but each Nation must interpret and adapt them through their own laws, values, and governance. Here are the most well-known frameworks used on Turtle Island today.
The First Nation Principles of Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP®)
The OCAP® Principles were developed in 1998 by the National Steering Committee, which later became the First Nations Information Governance Centre, in Canada. OCAP® remains one of the most widely adopted Indigenous data governance frameworks designed for First Nations. It establishes that First Nations own, control, access, and possess their information. [1]
Ownership
A First Nation collectively owns its data, the same way an individual owns their personal information.
Control
First Nations have the right to control all aspects of how information about them is managed, from design and collection through to storage and sharing.
Access
First Nations have the right to access data held about them, wherever it sits.
Possession
Possession means physical control of that data, which is the mechanism for asserting ownership.
OCAP® means that First Nations have authority over how AI vendors use their data, as well as how organizations use AI with First Nations’ data. It asserts their control over how their data is extracted, interpreted, and output by these systems and the organizations that use them. First Nations have rightful jurisdiction over their own data, including knowing who stewards it, so that they can assert their right to access and possess it within their own governance and infrastructure.
Global Indigenous Data Sovereignty Frameworks
The Collective Benefits, Authority to Control, Responsibility and Ethics (CARE) Principles [2] were developed in 2018 to address gaps in the global open data movement, which had ignored Indigenous rights and power imbalances. Existing principles within the open data movement, such as the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles [3], primarily focus on characteristics of data that facilitate increased data sharing among entities. CARE are people and purpose-oriented, reflecting the crucial role of data in advancing Indigenous innovation and self-determination. These principles complement the existing FAIR principles. Together, they shift the question from "can this data be shared?" to "should it be shared, by whom, and for whose benefit?"
Findable
The first step in (re)using data is to find it. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers.
Accessible
Once data is found, it needs to be clear how it can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorization.
Interoperable
The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data needs to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.
Reusable
The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimize the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings.
Collective benefit
Data ecosystems must be designed so that Indigenous Peoples and communities genuinely benefit from data about them. Data is a resource to strengthen communities, not extract from them.
Authority to control
Indigenous Peoples have inherent rights to govern data about their peoples, lands, and knowledge systems, including the power to define how data is collected, used, and shared.
Responsibility
Those who work with Indigenous data — including AI companies, researchers, and governments — carry obligations beyond compliance. They must actively support self-determination and build community data capacity. Responsibility is relational and long-term.
Ethics
Indigenous values and cultural frameworks must guide ethical decision-making throughout the full data lifecycle. External ethical standards alone are not sufficient — community values must lead.
Applying the FAIR and CARE Principles means that Indigenous Peoples must be able to find, access, and understand how their data are being used by AI, while also ensuring those systems are governed by their own laws, values, and consent. This includes clear documentation, metadata, and transparency about where data comes from, how it is used, and who can access or reuse it. At the same time, these principles assert that AI must generate value for Indigenous communities through free, prior, and informed consent, fair benefit-sharing, and investments in community capacity. Indigenous Peoples have the right to know who is using their data, how decisions are being made, and to ensure their ethical frameworks guide the design, training, deployment, and ongoing use of AI systems.
A New Standard for Documenting and Tracking Indigenous Data
In November 2025, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) approved the first-ever international standard on the provenance of Indigenous Peoples' data. IEEE 2890-2025 [4] requires scientists and technology professionals (including AI developers) to record the origin and history of use for data about and relating to Indigenous Peoples.
This is a significant shift because, for the first time, there is a global technical standard that recognizes Indigenous governance rights in how data is documented and tracked, including across AI systems.
Developing Your Own Data Governance Framework
Established frameworks such as OCAP®, CARE, FAIR, and IEEE 2890-2025 can help Nations and organizations ask better questions about data rights, responsibilities, access, consent, transparency, and benefit. But they are not a substitute for Nation-led governance. Each Nation and organization needs to interpret these frameworks through its own laws, values, cultural protocols, relationships, and decision-making processes.
References
[1] OCAP® is a registered trademark of the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). See First Nations Information Governance Centre, The First Nations Principles of OCAP®, 2025, https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/
[2] Global Indigenous Data Alliance, “CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance,” accessed August 12, 2026, https://www.gida-global.org/careprinciples
[3] GO FAIR, “FAIR Principles,” accessed August 12, 2026, .
[4] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “IEEE 2890-2025: IEEE Recommended Practice for Provenance of Indigenous Peoples’ Data,” November 14, 2025,