Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Study Team (5th) of the digitalization Working Group Legal Affairs Office

Overview

Date and time: Friday, May 13, 2022 (2022) from 2:15 pm to 4:00 pm
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. Investigation of Cases on digitalization of Legal Affairs in Foreign Countries (Interim Report)
  2. Process toward digitalization of legal affairs
  3. Toward the establishment of a process and system for confirming compliance with the law Digital Principles
3. Adjournment

Materials

Related Information

The fifth meeting of the Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Study Team of the digitalization Working Group Legal Affairs Office was held.

Minutes

Secretariat (Yagyu): . Thank you for joining us today.

As the time has come, we would like to hold the fifth meeting of the "digitalization Study Team on Legal Affairs".
I am Yagyu, Planning Officer of Digital Agency, and I will be chairing the meeting today. Nice to meet you.

Today, we are inviting members and observers to participate online.

Today, Mr. Gyosei Co., Ltd., which has been commissioned by the Secretariat to conduct a survey on the digitalization of legal affairs in foreign countries, is also present, so I would like you to be aware of this.
Today's agenda is as shown on the screen. We have prepared three main agenda items.

I would like to move on to the first item of the agenda. Regarding the interim report on the case study on digitalization of legal affairs in foreign countries, please give an explanation by Gyosei Co., Ltd. in about 20 minutes. Then, Mr. Gyosei, thank you.

Gyosei Co., Ltd. (Mr. Ishizaki): . Nice to meet you.
This time, I would like to make an interim report on the digitalization of legal affairs in foreign countries.

In terms of my backbone, in 2005, I was involved in the development of the law Examination Support System of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, the development of the legal affairs system for local government, and the support work of the data maintenance of e-LAWS of the Ministry of Justice.

Based on the experiences of the surveys conducted by foreign countries this time, I would like to compare the survey results with Japanese examples and look at the perspectives from which the difficult aspects of digitalization were cleared.

In today's report, I would like to introduce the points of attention based on documents. We have not yet reached the stage of comparative examination, but I would like to ask for your forgiveness. Thank you very much.

As for the slides, this time, we will focus on the law editing software LEOS of the EU, the law database EUR-Lex, the E-Legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany, and the law collaboration system LDe Eunomia of Denmark on the next page.

On the next page, in investigating the cases this time, the survey items include the legislative support system, the revision method of law, the public notice method of law, the location and organization of the official law database, the distinction from the private sector law Collection, and Rules as Code.

First of all, I would like to take a look at the EU.

The EU's LEOS is owned by the General Intelligence Directorate of the European Commission.

Next, with regard to the background of development, the complexity of the legislative process to date, the many parties involved, the coexistence of digital and paper, and the problem of document version management have been the origins of the incident.

Page 8 shows a picture of the EU legislative procedure for your reference.

On page 9, I heard that the prototype release of LEOS began in 2015 and is currently supported by organization called Interoperable organization, which publishes various tools for the public sector.

The law types of the EU are listed on page 10. The law types of the EU are divided into primary and secondary laws, and the EU Basic Treaty, which is the primary law, and other regulations below, the secondary laws are supported by the LEOS.

The characteristics of the LEOS are listed on page 11.

The purpose of LEOS is efficient online collaboration. The first feature is cooperation, in which a single file can be accessed online and edited by multiple people at the same time.

As a structure, it can be drafted based on the structure of EU law, adopting the template of EU law. It means that it can be drafted based on the rules, which are restricted as much as possible to prevent errors.

In addition, it seems to be equipped with the function of review, the function of import, the function of rich text, and the function of version control.

For your reference, I have captured the screen of the LEOS. I think it includes the start-up screen, global management of files, drafting environment, tracking changes between versions, editing of tables and table contents, management of file partitioning, quick editing of text, and comment function here. In addition, I have posted the screen of the review tool.

It is page 20. In the revision of EU law, the term "integration" is used in Japanese legal terminology to refer to the integration of amendments. However, the Directorate-General for Legislative Acts of the European Parliament has been responsible for the integration of partial amendments, and the final integrated draft laws are published on the EU's official law database, EUR-Lex.

Page 21 is also a reference, but regarding the organization called Interoperable Europe, which I introduced earlier, we have a list of services. In addition to LEOS, for example, it is an organization that publishes a data model that describes life events of public services, shares IT solutions in the public sector, and a system of documents required for public procurement procedures.

Regarding the LEOS on page 22, it is a system used in EU member countries, so it seems to be characterized by a block configuration so that functions can be linked and integrated into the systems of EU member countries.

In addition, we store LEOS in XML format and manage it in storage. XML format, currently Akoma Ntoso V3.

From page 24, we introduce the law database EUR-Lex.
Publication of EU legislation is to be carried out by the EU Press.

The public notice was published in paper form until the end of 2013, but since 2014 it has been published only in electronic form.
The screen image is attached.

On page 26, it is introduced that the EU official gazettes is divided into three sections: law, Notice, and Government procurement Information.

Page 28 shows the location of the official law Directory under EU law. Since the EU does not have an official law Directory or a paper law Directory, it can be viewed and downloaded on the EUR-Lex website.
Attached is an image of the screen.

On page 32, as a division between the official law Collection and the private sector law Collection, a paper private sector Collection is issued by a company in law. Several are issued. The one by Sweet & amp; Maxwell is a representative. It is provided mainly for the use of legal professionals.

On page 33, I give an example of the Rules as Code initiative. Since 2012, the European Commission's regulation Suitability and Performance Program has been implemented. By simplifying law and making it more targeted, it aims to make it easier for companies and individuals to comply and to obtain the intended benefits.

Authorities and citizens can make proposals to reduce the burden on regulation and the administration, and the proposals are analyzed by the European Commission. The analysis assesses whether there is a possibility to consider efficient options, simplify laws, and remove unnecessary regulation.

This is the progress of the competition law, and there is a scoreboard that shows the progress of whether it is under consideration or has become a bill.

In addition, it describes the output format of law in EUR-Lex, etc. It can output to five formats.

In addition, regarding EUR-Lex, there is a section for experimental functions inside, and it seems to have an interesting function of launching after trying the experimental function.
That is all about EU.

Next, I would like to make a report on Germany.

The background of the German E-Legislation project is that the National regulation Management Council (NKR) was established in 2006.

It is an advisory body that aims to ensure that legal regulation is made more transparent by clearly and comprehensibly showing the consequences and costs to people, businesses and the government.

In 2019, the NKR published a research report on the modernization of the legislative process and digitalization. In this report, first the content and then the paragraphs, it is proposed to build a consistent legislative system.

The project has four objectives: creating a new IT foundation for the legislative process, eliminating system discontinuity, making the legislative process seamless and interoperable, and adapting the legislative process to the latest technologies.

The next page shows the flow of the German legislative cycle, the process of scrutiny of German articles, and the image of the position of the new system in the German legislative process.

In addition, I am writing about the legislative process in Germany, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, and other committees.

Currently, E-Legislation is scheduled to be implemented in development no later than 2023.

I am summarizing the functions of the system in development. It seems that the functions of a text editor for legislation, electronic preparation of draft proposals, a library of guidelines, regulation assessment, a sustainability check application, and intra-ministerial and inter-ministerial coordination will be implementation.

As for page 46, the revision of the German law has also been implemented in a partial revision method.
In order to make the content of the amendments easier to read, publishers and online providers carry out the work of integration and consolidation. law, which has also carried out the integration, is published as an unofficial document. However, what is published on the site is the integrated, integrated laws and regulations and orders.

It is page 47. Regarding public notice in law, laws or orders are published in the Federal law Gazette. Regarding laws and orders, it seems that the paper version of the gazette is currently treated as the original.
However, it seems that they have already made a official gazettes on the electronic version for a notice called Federal transition or a public notice of a company.

On page 49, the official law database is maintained by the Federal Department of Justice.

In addition, the website, the law on the Internet, and the database website are provided by the Federal Department of Justice in collaboration with a company called Juris.

In addition to this, a company called Juris has created and operates a paid members-only database called JURIS Online.

The next page summarizes the outline of a company called Juris. Since it was founded in 1985, it is a company when Germany is divided into east and west, and the federal government invests in it.

However, as it is written at the end, it seems that this company is at the top of the publishing network jurisAllianz, which includes major publishers, distributors, and ministries, centered on Juris.

I am writing about the division from the private sector law Collection. Services of Juris are listed here, and some other services are also listed. In addition to this, there seems to be a website operated by private sector and a legal information site.

As for efforts such as Rules as Code, in Germany, the form and structure of documents in legislation are firmly determined by the guidelines. By working through a text editor for legislation according to the guidelines, legislators can consistently label specific structures and content in documents and have a consistent structure for all parties concerned. It seems that there is already a system of legislation according to the guidelines, a text editor.

Page 53 is about the initiative of public service information management.

The joint information management tool called FIM, which is used based on the Online Access Act enacted in 2017, has a goal of standardizing processes in every public service as a system. For example, this makes the content of a public service in one state available to other states. In addition, in the report titled Contents and Paragraphs, it is pointed out that it is expected to enable legal simulations in advance, such as impact assessments of not only the current digitalization in public service, but also regulation in the future.

That is the report from Germany.

The third example is Denmark.

The legislative process in Denmark involves the creation of a bill, consideration of the bill in the parliament, reading, modification and adoption of the bill three times in the parliament, publication in the official official gazettes, and reflection in the official legal information database. The following is the system configuration.

The editor is Lex Dania editor Eunomia, the workflow is Lex Dania Klient, official gazettes Lovtidende, and the official legal information database Retsinformation.

The figure shows the roles of Lex Dania editor Eunomia and Lex Dania Klient. Lex Dania editor Eunomia is in charge of drafting, amending, and passing bills. Lex Dania Klient is in charge of the workflow of submitting bills, deliberating, and approving them by the King.

Lex Dania is administered by the Civil Affairs Department under the Ministry of Justice.

In addition, a company called Schultz is mentioned as a operation maintenance business operator.

The system is used by a wide range of users, from Congress to government agencies.
As for the last line, when the legal information database is disclosed, a private sector company called Rosenthal and Lex Dania Klient are connected. It is said that part of the disclosure work can be outsourced or not. If it is outsourced, the manual says that updated legal information will be disclosed within 24 hours.

The company called Schultz, which appeared here, is said to be a company close to the National Printing Bureau established in 1661.

Also, Rosenthal Corporation was established in 1902, and now it seems to be a printing and publishing company and a service provider company.

Regarding the history of development of Lex Dania, the first generation was based on MS Word, but since the fourth generation in 2015, it has been succeeded by a system called Lex Dania editor Eunomia. Unlike Word, it is said that development of a dedicated editor enables real-time error detection with awareness of document structure.

On the next page, we translate the principles of digital by default. We will eliminate unnecessary and complex rules, and transform new rules into easy-to-understand, secure and easy-to-use digital solutions. It seems that under this agreement, the strong promotion of legislative digitalization in Denmark was carried out.

The following page summarizes the functions and so on.

Regarding the functions of Lex Dania editor Eunomia, it is an application called the Digital Library of Legal Guidelines. Lex Dania editor Eunomia supports the technical and formal rules of the law, limits errors in drafting, and says that errors are fed back immediately. On the other hand, Lex Dania editor Eunomia has an error detection function, but does not have ambiguity detection, complex document detection, or recommendation function for document improvement. As in the past, it seems that the drafter is responsible for such matters.

Page 67 shows the revision method of law. Denmark has also been integrated in the form of a partial revision, but the Secretariat for Digital Readiness and Legislation was established in early 2018, and it seems that the Secretariat is responsible for ensuring that the legislation is appropriately described and whether it is digitally ready at the bill phase.

Laws have been promulgated in official gazettes, but all laws in official gazettes have been computerized since 2008.

Finally, to separate from the private sector law Collection in Denmark, there are several private sector law Collections in Denmark, and in addition to the official law database, there is a law database of private sector for professionals, experts, and business use.

In conclusion, I have reported on Denmark.
That's all for the interim report. From the investigation phase in the second half, we would like to conduct hearings with related organizations.

We would like to ask the European Commission, the EU Press, the German Federal Ministry of Justice, the Federal Office of Justice, and the Federal Ministry of the Interior about the development and operation status of the current legislative system.

Finally, Rules as Code will be a Issue of the second half of the report. Regarding the Rules as Code, in the final report, I would like to clarify what the definitions of the Rules as Code are, what technologies the initiatives have, who the promoters are, whether the results of the government, academic, and civic tech projects are actually being introduced, and whether they are experimental.

That's all for the interim report. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Yagyu): .
If you have any comments or questions on Agenda 1-3, including this one, I would appreciate it if you could put them together after Agenda 3, so I would like to do so.

Next, I would like to move on to the second item on the agenda. Regarding the schedule for the digitalization of legal affairs that you discussed last time, the secretariat will explain it in about five minutes. Thank you for your explanation.

Secretariat (Ohkubo): Thank you for your comments, Regarding document 2, pages 2 to 4 are almost the same as the previous fourth document, but I will explain only the summary on page 2.

One of our major goals is to create environments in which we can always refer to the digital original of law and the latest version of the official law database.

In doing so, the issue is that we would like to provide data in a format and content that is easy for the people to use, in other words, data that is updated as soon as possible and at the same time as it is promulgated, as well as content in a format that is easy for secondary use, various links, and rich information.

In order to realize this, the Japanese law has been partially amended, so the cost of integration will be important. Therefore, what we should aim for is a system in which legal affairs are completed in the same law Database, and the provisions in the law Database are directly edited, which will be necessary in order to ultimately aim for the goal.

As an effort to achieve this, in the case of updating the provisions in the database, it will have a very significant impact on how the law Database is created and how the law is revised. Therefore, first of all, in the form of proof-of-concept and proof-of-concept, we will properly validation the data structures and legislation to determine whether such a thing can actually be realized.

On pages 3 and 4, we were sorting out the matters to be validation in the proof of concept, and in the previous meeting, the 4th Review Team pointed out various ways to proceed.

The fifth page at the end of this report summarizes the content based on the points pointed out in the fourth report. The first is the achievement level, and it was pointed out that it is important to directly connect to user needs and pain points as an outcome.

As I stated at the beginning, the law Database will provide accurate and up-to-date information to the people. There are two points in this regard. The database will be updated immediately, and the value of use will be improved by adding annotation information. Furthermore, updating the database in the same database will be the legal work itself. From the perspective of preventing errors from occurring on the spot and performing work efficiently, even if we return to the flow of legal work, I believe that the goal to be achieved is that the flow of work itself will change centered on the database.

In the process of advancing this through PoC and proof of concept, we need to conduct PoC while receiving feedback from users at an early stage. Based on your comment, I have underlined two points below.

My first question is about the survey on the revision method, etc., which will be the basis for these proof-of-concept efforts. You pointed out that it is important for each ministry and agency to prepare the law draft and to receive proper feedback from the entities in charge of the review. In the case of the revision method, for example, we assume that the proof of concept actually starts at the level of the ministerial ordinance, but in the case of the ministerial ordinance, in the case of Digital Agency, when the revision is made in the form of a new / old comparative table, we simply draw a line through the difference, but in other ministries and agencies, I recognize that the method of expressing it in the new / old comparative table is slightly different depending on how the articles are changed, for example, the articles are shifted. For example, if it is a joint order between Digital Agency and other ministries and agencies, there are a wide variety of rule systems, so it is necessary to properly understand what is being implemented by the actual persons in charge when aiming for standardization while properly sorting out such systems.

In addition, through such efforts, whether or not the flow of editing the law database is actually possible as a business or whether it will fall into the actual flow will be difficult to be accepted unless the flow actually creates the implementation and solves the pain points of the person in charge of the law, so I recognize that feedback and validation are necessary from such a perspective.

I would like to underline another point. With regard to the data structuring and data development part, premised on the knowledge of the survey on the revision method and other methods I just mentioned, how to actually bring it down to the data and how to bring it down to the database mechanism, the review team has received support from people with technical knowledge, including legal tech, and you pointed out that it will be important to continue to proceed while obtaining such knowledge from private sector.

It is written as code for e-LAWS (tentative name), but in the case of Editor development, while utilizing a framework that allows us to obtain technical knowledge widely and openly, we will steadily enhance usability. In the first place, we will edit the database, so we will obtain specialized knowledge on how to express in data structures that the text can be used as it is for compiling law.

In the fifth round of discussions, I would appreciate if you could give us your suggestions on how to proceed with the PoC and how we need to delve into these items.

That's all from me.

Secretariat (Yagyu): .

Next, I would like to move on to the third item of the agenda. The Secretariat will explain about "Establishment of a Process and System for Confirming the Conformity to law's Digital Principles."

I would like to turn over one page. This is a summary document. I would like to explain mainly the revisions from the document submitted at the Digital Consultation on March 30. In order to thoroughly implement the digital principles, I am writing about how we will continue to review and inspect new law and existing law.

One thing is in the yellow box. We are considering a broad direction and a time schedule for the future, and we would like to start confirmation on a trial basis from among the bills to be submitted to the ordinary session of the Diet in 2024. To that end, as I will explain later, we need to develop a certain degree of the conference body and the Digital Agency system. We need to specify that, and we also need to further deepen and elaborate detailed procedures on how to actually do this, so we would like to make a detailed design of our efforts within this fiscal year.

I have explained this before, but if I were to repeat it, it would be divided into three main processes: (I), (ii), and (iii).

The first is that we will provide specific guidelines to ministries and agencies that plan regulation, procedures, and other matters so that they can understand what should be done in order to actually make a transition to the Digital Principles, but the content of this is quite related to Technology Map and others, and we are writing about this along with the development of Technology Map. We are also writing about conference bodies and council bodies.

(ii) With regard to the incorporation of new law into the legislative process and other matters, I am writing that Digital Agency will take the initiative in reviewing the draft laws and ordinances that will be decided by the Government, and that the timing will be before the Cabinet Legislation Bureau starts the preliminary examination, and that Digital Agency and each ministry will agree on what they want to do before the articles are actually examined in detail by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, and then move on to how to write the detailed articles.

On the other hand, with regard to the Ministerial Ordinance and subsequent ordinances, it is not possible to review all of them in Digital Agency, so I believe that this will be done with the cooperation of the Secretariat of each ministry, but we are thinking of having a confirmation process in place before a certain stage of decision making, such as public comments.

The existing law is being reviewed mainly by the Working Group, but with regard to the timing of the review, Digital Agency is considering using a conference body and other means based on the progress of technology, requests from the people of Japan, and the status of implementation of the regulation procedures.

The following squares are newly added. When we actually considered incorporating the legislative process, among certain laws, there are some that are treated differently from ordinary law. To be specific, there are various such as tax-related law, which is related to the LDP Tax Commission. In addition, I believe that organization law and salary-related law are applicable, but the process is a little different from other law, and it is necessary to separately consider how to treat them, so I am writing here just in case.

Furthermore, in terms of cooperation with the existing systems, we received an explanation from regulation about the preliminary assessment of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications at the second meeting of the Study Team, and promoting cooperation with such systems and the elimination of duplication will actually lead to the reduction of the burden on each ministry and agency, and I am writing that I would like to do this during the detailed design scheduled to be held this fiscal year.

Regarding (3), there are no particular changes, so I will omit the explanation.

From the following pages, I am writing the details, but I would like you to jump to the very last page. I am writing the process plan, but in the end, the process of confirming compliance with the Digital Principles is an rough schedule that can be fully implemented at the end of the intensive reform period, and I would like to do it in an agile manner. Therefore, I am writing the arrow feather for the process plan, such as full-scale implementation after the twenty twenty-five.

As for the explanation, although it has been simplified, I would like to leave it as it is.

Then, I would like to have a Q & A session and an exchange of opinions on agenda items 1 to 3.

If you have any questions or opinions, please press the button for a show of hands. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fujiwara.

FUJIWARA Member: FUJIWARA. Thank you very much.

I was listening to the materials that Gyosei gave me, thinking that they were really useful, or that I was really glad that I asked you to do so. My main impression was that the overall structure is somewhat similar to what I am thinking about now, which is to basically create an XML editor and create and circulate data around it. In that sense, I was listening to the materials as if I had somehow confirmed that the direction of the discussion was not so wrong.

In relation to this, I would like to make two comments. First, as you may have already noticed, I believe that the 2019 report prepared by Germany is one of the most useful and very important materials, and I think that it is better to dig deeper into it. The EU, Germany, and Denmark are basically within the EU, and I think they are cooperating with each other, or are related to each other. In terms of the order of things, there is probably the EU and there are other countries, but while Denmark is quite ahead, Germany is actually not so ahead, and I think it was because Germany tried to do its best in 2019. In a sense, it is similar to the current situation in Japan, and I feel that what Germany was able to think about while looking at various precedent cases is appearing there, and in that sense, I thought it would be very useful.

The other is related to the PoC. I think we will be thinking about various things in the future. As a matter of course, I think it is quite useful that various data are divided into blocks and applications are modularized. I think we need to think about it in that way.

In your report, there are tables on pages 21 and 22 for the EU, page 45 for Germany, and page 66 for Denmark. I think there are applications like this, and I think it is necessary to think about it while organizing it like this.

Finally, in relation to Document 3, I understand that the confirmation process was originally started by everyone's awareness, but I thought that the example of Denmark would be helpful, and as Gyousei's document is on page 67, for example, there is a story about evaluation tools, and of course, they are confirmed by people, but I thought it would be helpful if we could find out how the tools are used.

That's all.

Secretariat (Yagyu): .

Gyousei-san, do you have any comments?

Gyosei Co., Ltd. (Mr. Ishizaki): Gyosei, this is Ishizaki. Thank you very much.

The first report I received from Germany in 2019, first the content and then the report called Paragraphs, I also found it very interesting when I read it, and I think this is a useful content. I think you are right. Thank you very much.

FUJIWARA Member: I thought it was very difficult because there was also an English version, and I thought that what we were talking about here actually had to be in English.

I'm sorry but that's all.

Secretariat (Yagyu): Thank you very much.

Regarding the PoC, Mr. Okubo, do you have any additional information?

Secretariat (Ohkubo): Thank you for your comments, application. In fact, in terms of e-LAWS, there are efforts to improve the database so that it can be used more easily. I would like to gradually show that such a configuration is good while organizing the database properly. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Yagyu): Document 3, I believe that the points you pointed out are important, so when we hold a detailed institutional design, I would like to think about what exactly such a mechanism will be.

Next, Mr. Watanabe, you raised your hand. Nice to meet you.

WATANABE Member: Thank you for your cooperation. I am Attorney Watanabe. Thank you for your help today.

I would like to comment on Materials 1, 2, and 3 one by one in order.

Regarding the material 1, Mr. Gyosei's material, like Mr. Fujiwara, I am very grateful that you compiled a very wonderful content in a very short period of time. We are still considering the details of the material, but I believe that it is a very significant investigation in which the basis of our consideration is supported by the systems of foreign countries by the very rich information. I would like to ask for your continued support toward the completion.

Next, with regard to Material 2, the contents of the proof of concept that I requested in advance, such as the terminology, are also very well organized, and Material 2 is very well done, and I have no additional comments.

I would like to ask one thing about Material 3. Specifically, it is on page 2. I think this material is wonderful because it is very easy to understand and organized what to do after the proof of concept.

I would like to ask one thing. You are putting a lot of effort into the preliminary process, but in addition to that, as I have been saying, after a Cabinet Order is actually issued and a law is enacted, it is important that there is an opportunity for the people and experts to give feedback on the fact that the digital principles are not properly reflected in the legislative process. Therefore, not only in advance, but also after the fact, for example, in the case of a Cabinet Order, if there are public comments that do not conform to the digital principles at all, even at the stage we see them, I believe that we should add an aspect of ex post facto relief, such as having them discussed with Mr. Digital Agency again. In addition, I believe it will be a long story, but I would like you to consider the ex post facto perspective.

That's all 3 points from me. Thank you again today.

Secretariat (Yagyu): .
I would like to comment on Handout 3. I believe that the points you pointed out are extremely important. Although there are some parts that are not fully reflected in the handout, it is written that the status of implementation will be monitored in the existing law and so on. In terms of what we are actually doing while running, including ministerial ordinances, I would like to work out to what extent we can do in the detailed design, including the points you pointed out.

However, we will start with laws and other matters in an agile manner, so public comments will be at a later stage. Based on this, I would like to make a thorough design on how to proceed. Thank you for your comments.

Next, Mr. Tsunoda, nice to meet you.

Tsunoda Member: Thank you very much for the survey and the recompilation of materials.

There are some comments. First of all, about the first survey by Mr. Gyosei, I think it was really useful that you researched what you wanted to know about various countries.

Regarding this report, I would like to comment on a detailed point, but Akoma Ntoso is said to be read like "Acomantos" by connecting them. Akoma Ntoso is a global standard specification that was proposed by Professor Monica Palmirani of the University of Bologna and spread around the world. It seems to be used in African countries. As you reported, if the EU has also adopted it, it is a global standard.

Japanese e-LAWS was also combined with it at the time of design, or rather, Japanese design was first, so when I checked the compatibility later, it was mostly known to be compatible. Therefore, regarding the XML format adopted by the countries surveyed, such as Germany, I would like you to check whether it is compatible with Akoma Ntoso, or whether Akoma Ntoso is used in the first place and a plus alpha part is added on top of that, if possible.

As for the Japanese side, it has been maintained in a compatible state with Akoma Ntoso, and the fact that it will collapse due to the efforts of Digital Agency this time will mean that the efforts made so far will go down the drain, so I would like it to be succeeded if possible. This is an opinion that it is better to move toward standardization.

These are my comments on the first half of the report on the survey by each country.

Rules as Code was mentioned in the second half of the report, or at the end of the report, but I am a little concerned about the definition of Rules as Code. It seems that "Rules as Code" is already written in the items of the research reports of each country in this report, and it is compiled on the premise that the matters corresponding to this are known in the first place. I would like you to specify in what cases they were entered in the Rules as Code item column. For example, if you are searching at the time of a survey, there may be a search condition such as "The keyword used for the search was this." In this survey, I would like to know something that can be understood by Gyousei's intention, such as the condition for entering the Rules as Code column. At present, this is not seen, so I would like you to clarify that. This is my comment on Gyousei's report.

Next, I would like to talk about the overall way of proceeding and the process chart in the future. It is about advancing to agile and giving detailed feedback. At this time, I am a little concerned about listening to the voices of the development site and adapting to the site. Of course, there is no problem if they can be adapted, but I am worried about what to do if they cannot be adapted. In order to prevent the decision to add or not to add functions from being made only by the operator, if there is no mechanism to raise the voices of the site to a slightly higher meeting body, there is a concern that the voices of the site and the really important things will be ignored. I would like to ask you to incorporate this into the process.

That's all.

Secretariat (Yagyu): .
If you have any comments from Gyousei, please do so.

Gyosei Co., Ltd. (Mr. Ishizaki): .

Regarding the earlier Akoma Ntoso, I am sorry for my bad pronunciation because the word that starts with "n" does not exist in Japan. I am aware of the West African Akan language, and it is said on Wikipedia that it means linked heart. Thank you very much.

Regarding the standardization of the XML specification, I think we will organize it later and make it a common specification for Denmark, Germany, and the EU to exchange information. I will decide the definition of the specification, such as the definition of words, and organize it. Thank you very much.

In terms of the perspective of Rules as Code, we are also wondering from what perspective we should look at it. I think it is first easy to understand to collect the definitions of the initiatives of Australia, New Zealand, France, etc., which are listed as targets this time, and compare them. If you would like to look at Rules as Code from this perspective, I would like to hear your opinions.

That's all from here.

Tsunoda Member: My question may have been difficult to understand, but it is not that I want you to clarify the definition, but Mr. Ishizaki has set up an item called Rules as Code.

Gyosei Co., Ltd. (Mr. Ishizaki): Hai.

Tsunoda Member: After establishing it, the matters to be reported were written there. The question is from what perspective were the matters written in the Rules as Code column? I would like to hear Mr. Ishizaki's own thoughts on the perspective at that time.

Gyosei Co., Ltd. (Mr. Ishizaki): I understand.

Tsunoda Member: Based on that, I would like to understand that this report is written from the perspective of the judgment that these matters are necessary and unnecessary, and I would like you to write about such a perspective.

Gyosei Co., Ltd. (Mr. Ishizaki): Thank you very much. I was also worried about it, and I gave various examples, so I will organize again from what point of view I saw it. Thank you very much.

Tsunoda Member: I understand.

Secretariat (Ohkubo): Thank you for your comments, Next, with regard to the second schedule, first of all, I believe that it is exactly as you pointed out that it is compatible with the XML standard format. When choosing the data structure, such as whether or not to keep the information in the database, we would like to make a validation while taking XML compatibility into consideration.

In addition, in terms of how to proceed, I would like to talk about the rules. You said that you would like to have a mechanism that does not ignore parts that are difficult to unify or that cannot be coordinated. I believe that there will be various ways of doing this as we investigate. As you pointed out, I believe that there is a mechanism in validation that properly picks up such parts. On the contrary, I believe that there is an approach to incorporating them in a form that can be technically customized and described as, for example, general rules to a certain extent. I would like to think about this in a wide range of ways. Thank you for your pointing out.

Secretariat (Yagyu): With regard to the last point, I would like to add that the way of doing things so far is not a local rule, but I think it is true that there are actually differences between each ministry and agency. For example, even in the way of revising the ministerial ordinance, the way of doing the old and new comparison table is different, and such things are common in the actual work of law. Therefore, it is natural for us to listen to your opinions as much as possible and try to make it easier for you to use. However, as Mr. Tsunoda said, there are cases where we do not use it because we do not want to use it. If we do not use it because we have a reason or if we do not use it after everyone agrees, that is fine, but we should not use it simply because we do not want to use it. We believe that the fact that we are working on this through the Digital Policy Coordination is just one big opportunity, and that it is because of the Digital Policy Coordination that we will be able to talk about doing it together in the end. Regarding that, although we will be working on administrative coordination first, we believe that each ministry and agency must follow us or lead us to follow us. I would like to ask for your continued guidance.

Next, Mr. Yasuno, may I ask you a question?

Yasuno Member: Thank you, .

I'm afraid I have a cold and my voice is hoarse, so I'm going to turn off the video.

I have two comments. The first is about the materials I received from Mr. Gyosei. As Mr. Fujiwara said, as a major policy, I felt that what I had originally talked about in this conference was not so misplaced. It was an interesting material that was very educational. Thank you for your investigation.

In the future, rather than successful cases, if we can collect cases where we have stumbled here or want to fail here, I think it would be good to know the pitfalls in advance. What concerns me personally is, for example, the case of Denmark, where we originally made a word editor by expanding words, and I think it is a big decision point and an important point technically whether we will make a word editor by expanding words or create a completely new editor. I think it would be good to know what happened in Denmark, where we are already attending, and not limited to that, if we try to make a problem here, I think it would be very helpful. This is my first comment on the survey by Gyousei.

My second comment is about the process chart in Material 2. I am looking at the process chart on page 4 again, and perhaps I should have noticed it at the previous meeting, but as a somewhat naive question, it says (draft), so I think it is a premise to be worked on in the future, but I began to think that it is better to think about the order of requirements definition a little more.

I believe that annotations and XML definitions are based on the premise that some kind of new editor will be used properly, and in the first stage, you will use the editor, and the legal process itself will be on top of it. In the second stage, I believe that the structure will be such that new data will be added one after another, and I think that it is more agile to schedule the validation in order from the base rather than validation all at once, so I hope that we can consider that in the future.

There were two comments from me.

Secretariat (Ohkubo): Thank you for your comments, .

Regarding the second point, I believe that it is exactly as you pointed out. You said that the process can be done properly as a foundation, but in terms of the editor this time, it is premised that the text written here can be returned to the database properly and can be used for editing, and then various information can be added as annotations. I believe that the order will be in this order. I believe that the first step will be in conjunction with the investigation of the revision method, etc., but I would like to proceed in a manner that can be defined as a requirement after taking such steps properly, and I would appreciate your guidance in the future.

Secretariat (Yagyu): With regard to the first point, I believe that in the materials of Mr. Gyosei, when you examine the introduction of the results of the actual project, you will also examine such parts. Do you have any comments or other comments?

Gyosei Co., Ltd. (Mr. Ishizaki): Word, the reason for the version upgrade of the system is that there was some problem, and I think the version upgrade will be carried out. I would like to see what the Issue of the version upgrade was and how the Issue was cleared in the three countries this time. Thank you very much.

Yasuno Member: Thank you, .

Secretariat (Yagyu): Next, Member Horiguchi, nice to meet you.

Member Horiguchi: Thank you for your response, materials. I'm Horiguchi.

Regarding all of Materials 1, 2, and 3, as a person belonging to an organization that is in a position to provide online editors to the market, I would like to express my opinions based on the points that I have considered while conducting investigations such as hearings. Since I am not an engineer, I would appreciate it if you could forgive me that I cannot guarantee an accurate expression from a technical point of view.

First of all, regarding editor development, the organization to which I belong has been conducting validation in the market for a considerable period of time, but I understand that this is part of a very difficult process.

As stated in Member Yasuno's statement, I have conducted an investigation and validation on the trial and error of my organization and other organizations, so I think I can tell you something.

In addition, you mentioned the point of usability, which requires a considerable amount of continuous validation regardless of the PoC period. I believe that this is an extremely important perspective from the perspective that this is a system used by employees, used in their daily work, and provided to the people.

Under these circumstances, I believe that the minimum requirement is that the system itself be easy to update. In other words, under these circumstances, it will be necessary to listen to the voices of the market. Therefore, unless the specifications are in line with the market standards in private sector, it will be difficult to catch up with the technological trends in private sector. In addition, I believe that lock-in may occur in maintenance and other operations.

Regarding the standard XML configuration, I heard from Mr. Tsunoda that pages 3 and 4 of Handout 2 are premised on the handling and editing of XML data. Regarding this, I interviewed a person in charge of development of a law publishing company and other people with knowledge about editing systems, and I believe that it is necessary to investigate whether it is a general way of the current market standard in private sector to use XML data itself as master data.

In part, by saving XML, the process of saving XML becomes heavy, and as a result, the web, remote work, is essential at present, but there is also a concern that editing on the web will become heavy and inconvenient.

Regarding Document 1, there was an expression that overseas systems can be output in XML, but some people said that it is a general and standard form to perform input and output in XML rather than handling XML for the data itself.

From this perspective, I have looked at the materials and conducted interviews with people with knowledge from a general perspective. I believe that it is important to investigate and consider these points when implementing PoC, proof of concept, and other measures.

That's all.

Secretariat (Yagyu): .

We would like to hear comments from the Secretariat.

Secretariat (Ohkubo): Thank you for your comments, .

The first point is that the editor development is quite difficult, but as Mr. Yasuno pointed out earlier, it is sequentially from the base part, and this time, I recognize that the editor can be used for editing, which is properly returned to the database. Therefore, I would be very grateful if you could give us some knowledge about the precedent.

In addition, in the second half, regarding XML editing, you said that everything is XML-based, but as Mr. Tsunoda pointed out in the data output section, while it is important to output data in standard XML format, in fact, as I mentioned in Part 4, we are working on changing the database to a document DB format. In that process, we are considering converting XML to JSON and inputting and outputting data in XML. I would like to consider the architecture while giving feedback on the status of implementation's work.

In addition, regarding usability, an extremely high level is also required. In the case of e-LAWS, we have had designers create prototypes in the past, but we understand that the design process that incorporates the voices of actual users is more important than ever, and we would like to advance such a matter so that we can make a proper validation in the PoC. Thank you for your pointing out.

Member Horiguchi: Thank you for your response, .

With regard to the second point in Document 2, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Secretariat (Yagyu): Next, Mr. Yoneda, please.

Yoneda Member: Thank you, .

The materials and explanations from Mr. Gyosei are very detailed, and the materials are described specifically, so it was very helpful.

There are no opinions on the content of each of the three materials. However, as Mr. Tsunoda stated earlier, in order to proceed with the work, it is necessary to make the materials easy to understand or persuasive enough to lead the ministries and agencies that have been working separately. This is a very basic request, but I would like you to present these materials so that they can be compared with the situation in Japan. Based on this, I believe that in the explanation to and persuasion of the ministries and agencies, we can more clearly show that Japan is in this situation and must change. Although some of the materials of the Council are OK at the level that we, as members, can understand, in order to achieve the purpose of the Council, it is not enough to conclude with the agreement of the Council, but it is necessary to change the method widely. In order to obtain understanding from the outside, I would like to ask you to include the Japanese part so that we can compare it with Japan.

That's all.

Secretariat (Yagyu): , what do you think?

Gyosei Co., Ltd. (Mr. Ishizaki): Regarding the comparison with Japan, I think it is correct to compare Japan with each country and compare them point-to-point, so I would like to talk with you after consulting with the secretariat.

Secretariat (Yagyu): Since it was an important point, the Secretariat will work on it while consulting with Mr. Gyosei. Thank you very much.

Member Yagita, nice to meet you.

Yagita Member: I am Yagita of Legalscape.

Thank you very much for preparing Materials 1 to 3. I believe that they were very easy to understand and suggestive.

I basically agree with all the opinions expressed by each member so far, and I have no additional comments on Materials 1 to 3.

Just one point. I would like to talk about where we can be of help as a member in the future for your reference. At the end of Material 2, I believe there is a method of proof-of-concept. We have some knowledge on how people, especially legal professionals, are likely to use law when it is disclosed. In addition, when it is disclosed in the form of an API that is expected to be used mainly by business operators, we believe that it is possible for us to provide our knowledge in such a form because the service we provide is to analyze law and other data and provide it to, for example, lawyers or corporate legal departments. I have mentioned this for your reference.

Thank you very much this time.

Secretariat (Yagyu): . I would like to ask for your knowledge and advice. I look forward to your continued support.

I have received comments from the members once. I would like to ask for additional comments. In addition, I believe several members of the Working Group have participated in the meeting. If they have any questions or opinions, I would like to ask them to raise their hands.

If there seems to be nothing in particular, today is a little early, but I would like to stop now. If anyone would like to make a statement, please raise your hand. Thank you, Mr. Fujiwara.

FUJIWARA Member: This is just a question, but will it be reported to the Working Group around the end of this month? What kind of schedule will it be?

Secretariat (Yagyu): Finally, I was going to explain the schedule.

FUJIWARA Member: I see. I'm sorry. I'm fine.

Secretariat (Yagyu): I have just received it, so I would like to explain it to you, including how to proceed in the future.

First of all, regarding Materials 2 and 3, I believe that the points you pointed out today have been reflected, so we are considering a rough schedule in which we will report to the Working Group and then reflect them in the Comprehensive Review Plan to be compiled at the Digital Consultation at the end of May. Therefore, I would like you to understand that the flow will be such that Materials 2 and 3, which you saw and confirmed today, will be reported to the Working Group. That is the schedule.

Does anyone have any other questions?

As it seems unlikely, I would like to take more time today. I am very sorry, but I would like to conclude today's proceedings.

In addition, regarding Material 3, there were some parts in red, but from the viewpoint of ease of explanation, we have made them in red. We would like to state all of them in black at the time of publication. Thank you.

We would like to keep the content of today's meeting and other matters public, as we have done so far.

With that said, I would like to conclude today's meeting. Thank you very much for your participation today.