13 KiB
Draft Emails to Scholars — Taonga-Centred Steering Governance Paper
1. Professor Tahu Kukutai — University of Waikato
To: tahuk@waikato.ac.nz Subject: Request for critical review — Taonga-Centred Steering Governance (STO-RES-0010)
Tēnā koe Professor Kukutai,
My name is John Stroh. I am a retired technologist based in North Canterbury, now working on a small research programme concerned with sovereign AI deployment for communities in Aotearoa. The programme operates under the name Tractatus and is documented at agenticgovernance.digital.
I am writing to you because we have produced a draft paper that draws substantially on your work — in particular your co-edited volume Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda (2016) and the principles established by Te Mana Raraunga, of which I understand you are a founding member. The paper is entitled "Taonga-Centred Steering Governance: Polycentric Authority for Sovereign Small Language Models" and proposes an architectural and governance model in which steering vectors — the mathematical instruments used to adjust language model behaviour at inference time — are treated as governed cultural objects rather than engineering affordances.
The central argument is that some domains of cultural knowledge are structurally outside the platform operator's authority to define or correct, and that the governance of model behaviour should be polycentric rather than hierarchical. We draw on the concepts of taonga, tikanga, kaitiakitanga, and tino rangatiratanga to develop this argument.
I must be candid about the paper's principal limitation: it is written by a non-Maori author in collaboration with an AI assistant. It has not been reviewed by Maori scholars or practitioners. We say as much in the paper itself, and we mean it. The governance concepts from te ao Maori that we invoke are complex, living concepts that carry authority far beyond what we can adequately represent. There is a genuine risk that we have misapplied, oversimplified, or inappropriately instrumentalised them.
It is precisely for this reason that I am writing to you. I should be most grateful if you would be willing to read the paper and offer your critical assessment — not as endorsement, but as the kind of rigorous scrutiny the work requires before it can claim to serve the communities it describes. If the proposals are fundamentally misconceived, I would rather know that now than discover it after implementation.
The paper is available here: https://agenticgovernance.digital/docs-viewer.html?slug=taonga-centred-steering-governance-polycentric-authority-for-sovereign-small-language-models
I attach a short precis that summarises the argument and its relevance to your work. It may be useful for assessing whether the full paper warrants your time.
I am also writing separately to Associate Professor Maui Hudson and to Dr Stephanie Russo Carroll, whose CARE Principles the paper draws upon. I mention this in the interest of transparency, not to imply any prior coordination.
I recognise that your time is heavily committed and that unsolicited requests of this kind arrive frequently. If this is not something you are able to take on, I entirely understand.
Ngā mihi nui,
John Stroh agenticgovernance.digital Balcairn, North Canterbury
2. Associate Professor Maui Hudson — University of Waikato
To: maui.hudson@waikato.ac.nz Subject: Request for critical review — Taonga-Centred Steering Governance (STO-RES-0010)
Tēnā koe Associate Professor Hudson,
My name is John Stroh. I am a retired technologist based in North Canterbury, working on a small research programme concerned with sovereign AI deployment for communities in Aotearoa, documented at agenticgovernance.digital.
I am writing to you because we have produced a draft paper that is, in a sense, an attempt to address architecturally what your "Tikanga in Technology" programme addresses from within te ao Maori. The paper, "Taonga-Centred Steering Governance: Polycentric Authority for Sovereign Small Language Models," proposes a governance model for steering vectors — the mathematical instruments used to adjust language model behaviour at inference time — in which iwi and community authorities operate as co-equal peers to the platform operator, not as downstream consumers of its corrections.
Your work is woven through the paper in ways both explicit and structural. You are a co-author of the CARE Principles (Carroll et al., 2020), which we cite directly. You are a founding member of Te Mana Raraunga, whose charter informs our framing of Maori data as taonga. And your development of Biocultural Labels represents a practical precedent for the "taonga steering registries" we propose — governed metadata systems that encode provenance, access conditions, and cultural authority over digital objects.
I must be straightforward about what the paper is and what it is not. It is written by a non-Maori author in collaboration with an AI assistant. It has not been reviewed by Maori scholars or practitioners. We acknowledge this limitation explicitly in the paper, and we do not treat it as a formality. The concepts from te ao Maori that we draw upon — taonga, tikanga, kaitiakitanga, tino rangatiratanga, mana — carry meanings and obligations that we cannot fully represent. The risk of misappropriation or oversimplification is real.
I should be most grateful if you would be willing to read the paper and offer your critical assessment. I am not seeking endorsement. I am seeking the kind of correction that can only come from someone who works within the knowledge systems the paper attempts to engage with. If the direction is fundamentally wrong, that is a finding of equal value.
The paper is available here: https://agenticgovernance.digital/docs-viewer.html?slug=taonga-centred-steering-governance-polycentric-authority-for-sovereign-small-language-models
I attach a short precis that summarises the argument and its connection to your work. It may be useful for assessing whether the full paper warrants your time.
I am also writing separately to Professor Tahu Kukutai and to Dr Stephanie Russo Carroll. I mention this for transparency.
I am aware that requests of this nature are frequent and that your commitments are substantial. If this does not fit your current programme of work, I entirely understand.
Ngā mihi nui,
John Stroh agenticgovernance.digital Balcairn, North Canterbury
3. Andrew Martinez — Collaboratory for Indigenous Data Governance, University of Arizona
Note: Dr Stephanie Russo Carroll is on sabbatical (July 2025–June 2026). Per her auto-reply, correspondence should be directed to Andrew Martinez, Research Coordinator.
To: andrewmartinez@arizona.edu Subject: For Dr Carroll's consideration when time permits — Taonga-Centred Steering Governance (STO-RES-0010)
Dear Mr Martinez,
My name is John Stroh. I am a retired technologist based in New Zealand, working on a small research programme concerned with sovereign AI deployment for indigenous and community governance (agenticgovernance.digital).
I wrote to Dr Carroll regarding a draft paper that builds directly on the CARE Principles (Carroll et al., 2020) and on the Collaboratory's recent IEEE 2890-2025 standard. Her sabbatical auto-reply directed me to you.
The paper, "Taonga-Centred Steering Governance: Polycentric Authority for Sovereign Small Language Models," proposes a polycentric governance architecture for AI steering vectors — the mathematical instruments used to adjust language model behaviour at inference time. It argues that indigenous and community authorities should maintain co-equal jurisdiction over model behaviour alongside the platform operator, with explicit provenance tracking for every steering intervention. The paper draws on concepts from te ao Maori but is intended to be generalisable to other indigenous governance contexts.
I am not asking for an immediate response. I understand Dr Carroll's time is committed to funded projects and service to Indigenous Peoples, and this falls outside those areas. I should simply be grateful if you could pass the attached precis and paper link to her for consideration when her schedule permits — whether during or after her sabbatical.
The paper is available here: https://agenticgovernance.digital/docs-viewer.html?slug=taonga-centred-steering-governance-polycentric-authority-for-sovereign-small-language-models
I attach a short precis summarising the argument and its connection to the CARE Principles and IEEE 2890-2025. I am also writing to Professor Tahu Kukutai and Associate Professor Maui Hudson at the University of Waikato, whose work the paper draws upon.
Thank you for your time.
With respect,
John Stroh agenticgovernance.digital Balcairn, North Canterbury
4. Potaua Biasiny-Tule — Digital Natives Academy / UNESCO HILEG-ELT
To: potaua@internetnz.net.nz Subject: Request for critical review — Taonga-Centred Steering Governance (STO-RES-0010)
Tēnā koe Potaua,
My name is John Stroh. I am a retired technologist based in North Canterbury, working on a small research programme concerned with sovereign AI deployment for communities in Aotearoa, documented at agenticgovernance.digital.
I am writing to you — on the basis of TeRata Kikairo's recommendation— because we have produced a draft paper that attempts to address architecturally what you have been advocating for publicly: that tikanga should shape how AI operates for and with Māori. The paper, "Taonga-Centred Steering Governance: Polycentric Authority for Sovereign Small Language Models," proposes a governance architecture in which steering vectors — the mathematical instruments used to adjust language model behaviour at inference time — are governed polycentrically, with iwi and community authorities operating as co-equal peers to the platform operator rather than as downstream consumers of its corrections.
The central argument is that some domains of cultural knowledge are structurally outside the platform operator's authority to define or correct. Your work on UNESCO's High-Level Expert Lead Group on the Governance of Ecosystem-Level Transformation in AI addresses this at the ecosystem level — the question of how AI governance structures should accommodate, rather than subordinate, indigenous authority. Our paper arrives at a similar question from a different direction: what does a technical architecture look like that actually implements polycentric authority at the inference layer?
The paper draws on concepts from te ao Māori — taonga, tikanga, kaitiakitanga, tino rangatiratanga — to develop three architectural commitments: that steering packs encoding iwi knowledge are treated as governed cultural objects with iwi-controlled lifecycles; that iwi governance bodies operate as co-equal steering authorities alongside the platform; and that iwi hold an unconditional right of non-participation that the platform must respect as a governed absence, not a gap to fill.
I must be straightforward about what the paper is and what it is not. It is written by a non-Māori author in collaboration with an AI assistant. It has not been reviewed by Māori scholars or practitioners. We say this in the paper itself, and we mean it. The concepts from te ao Māori that we invoke carry authority and obligation far beyond what we can adequately represent. There is a genuine risk that we have misapplied, oversimplified, or inappropriately instrumentalised them.
It is for this reason that I am seeking critical review — not endorsement — from people whose work and practice give them the standing to judge whether these proposals respect the governance traditions they invoke or merely provide new mechanisms for their subordination.
I am also writing to Professor Tahu Kukutai, Associate Professor Maui Hudson, and Dr Stephanie Russo Carroll, whose published work the paper draws on directly. I mention this for transparency.
What your perspective offers that theirs does not — and I say this with full respect for their contributions — is operational. Your work building Digital Natives Academy and Digital Basecamp, your whānau's establishment of Native Tech as an NZQA-registered PTE, the launch of Google Māori, and your collaboration with the Alan Turing Institute on AI and data justice research — these demonstrate that Māori-led digital infrastructure is not a theoretical proposition but an operational reality. You have built and run these systems at a scale where governance frameworks either work or they don't. It is precisely this that makes your assessment of whether our governance proposals are viable or misconceived particularly valuable. A proposal that looks coherent on paper but fails at the coalface is not a contribution.
The paper is available here: https://agenticgovernance.digital/docs-viewer.html?slug=taonga-centred-steering-governance-polycentric-authority-for-sovereign-small-language-models
I attach a short precis that summarises the argument and its connection to your work. It may be useful for assessing whether the full paper warrants your time.
I recognise that your commitments are substantial and that unsolicited requests of this kind arrive frequently. If this is not something you are able to take on, I entirely understand.
Ngā mihi nui,
John Stroh
My Digital Sovereignty Ltd
M +64272418020
Research Website: https://agenticgovernance.digital Commercial Website: https://mysovereignty.digital