Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Study Team (6th) of the digitalization Working Group Legal Affairs Office

Overview

Date and Time: Monday, September 12, 2022 (2022) from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. Future Policies for Consideration toward digitalization of Legal Affairs (Draft)
  2. Presentation from Mr. Yoneda
  3. Trial Implementation of the Process for Confirmation of Compliance with the Digital Principles, etc. Pertaining to the Bill Scheduled to be Submitted to the Extraordinary Diet
  4. Questions and Answers and Exchange of
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 (Suga): Now that it is time, I would like to begin the sixth meeting of the digitalization Review Team of the Legal Affairs Department. I am Suga, Counsellor Digital Agency, and I will be facilitating the meeting. I look forward to working with you today.

All members and observers are invited to participate online as usual.
Before we begin the proceedings, I would like to receive an address from Senior Vice-Minister OGUSHI Masaki, who will newly assume the position of Senior Vice-Minister for Digital and will also serve as the Chair of the Study Team. Thank you very much.

Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister Okushi: My name is OGUSHI Masaki, and I have been appointed Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister for Digital . I am also serving as the Chair of the Study Team. Thank you for your cooperation.

I understand that under the Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group, the Study Team has been discussing the necessary responses to ensure the thorough implementation of the Digital Principles in the future.

First of all, as a necessary response, the establishment of a system and process that can autonomously and efficiently confirm the conformity to the digital principles has been mentioned. Regarding these, we recently set up the review of digital legislation Team to start some preliminary efforts. The secretariat will explain the details later, but we would like to have discussions with this team toward the enhancement of the process, so we would appreciate your continued cooperation.

In addition, when inspecting and reviewing systems, it is necessary to foster a culture in which not only politics and administration but also the whole country autonomously reviews the rules. For this reason, we would like to establish a system to provide digital original copies of law Date and build an environment that is easy for the public and private sectors to access. After this, the Secretariat will explain the proposed future policy for consideration. We would like to continue to receive your knowledge.
Thank you for your time today.

Secretariat (Suga): . The Senior Vice-Minister will leave the office here due to personal business. Thank you very much.

It has been decided that the Ministry of Justice will participate as an observer from this meeting. Until now, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Regional Bureau and the National Printing Bureau have participated as observers, but I would like to hear an address from Mr. Okubo of the Judicial System Department of the Minister's Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice, including the purpose of participating. Thank you very much.

MOJ: Mr. , I am Naoki Okubo of the Judicial System Department of the Minister's Secretariat of MOJ. Nice to meet you. The Ministry of Justice is considering creating a database of civil judgment information, and I have decided to participate in this review meeting as an observer, taking the opportunity of the recent newspaper report.

The creation of a database of civil judgment information has been discussed by a project team set up in a public interest incorporated foundation called the JFBA Legal Research Foundation, and the Ministry of Justice has participated as an observer and provided necessary cooperation.

In June this year, the project team made recommendations on institutional development, and the Ministry of Justice is also considering based on the recommendations. Although the Ministry of Justice is still at the stage of considering, we would like to refer to the status of the discussions by the digitalization Study Team of the legislative affairs when we proceed with the future consideration. We look forward to working with you in the future.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much. We would like to work in sync with the MOJ's consideration.

Today's proceedings are as projected on the screen.
Mr. Yamauchi, who has been participating in the Secretariat since this time, will explain Agenda 1 "Future Policies for Consideration toward digitalization of Legal Affairs (Draft)". Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): . I will be newly participating in the Secretariat from this time. Nice to meet you.

What I am projecting is Material 1, which is a draft of future policies for consideration toward the digitalization of legal affairs. The materials are divided into the first half and the second half. The first half summarizes the status of consideration so far, and the second half is included in the main topic of this discussion.
First of all, in the first half, I would like to briefly review the status of consideration so far.

Page 3 summarizes the timeline of the discussions. The review team has held discussions five times since February under the Digital Rincho, and has prepared a summary of major issues and a process chart for realization.

On page 4, the purpose of the original Digirinhontai is also written. It says that we will advance digital, regulation, and administrative reforms based on digital principles.

Page 5 is a document before the Review Team was launched, but at the Digi-in, we were conducting inspections and reviews of law and other facilities based on digital principles. Issue, the full investigation of regulation, came into view, and as you can see on page 6, a huge amount of manual work and human wave tactics were required for full investigation. Also, the master data of the rules did not exist. In addition, the overall picture of the rules was unclear. In order to deal with these Issue, the Review Team was launched, and we are discussing the conformity confirmation process, the system, and the digitalization of legal affairs.

On page 7, as a result of the discussion by the members of the Review Team, we have summarized our direction to establish a system to provide the latest version of the official law database.

In addition, on page 8, you organized the process chart. As stated at the bottom, the demonstration experiments will be next fiscal year or after fiscal 2023. At present, the status is PHASE, which is currently engaged in system requirements and technical studies.

Although it was rushed, the above is the status of consideration so far.
Based on this background, the second half of this session will be the main topic of discussion.

On page 10, we are organizing the purpose of the system, which is a prerequisite for the design of the system requirements. The colored part in the middle, the purpose is organized, but I will go from the left.

The first is to secure basic information that realizes the compliance confirmation cycle, which is to secure highly reliable data that can be used efficiently.

The second is strategic open data in law, so that all people can access law and advanced services can be created.

My third question is about making law operations efficient and attractive by adapting to the digital principles of law operations themselves.

On page 11, the desired effects of the system are further broken down from the perspective of administration, users, and society as a whole.
For example, on the right side, the second part of the upper group. By separating the layout adjustment and text editing, the ability of the staff and the effect of being able to focus resources on the essence are written.

In this regard, I have made legislative amendments and ministerial ordinance notification amendments, but not only the content of the system but also the layout has taken up considerable time, so I believe that digital technology can contribute in many ways.

Below that, in the center, the first point is that everyone can immediately view the latest reliable information, and this world of common sense is realized.

In addition to this, the third part is about accelerating the creation of more advanced services using legal tech.

At the bottom, it says that by quickly and promptly reviewing law and other matters with this system, those that had been inconvenient procedures will be reviewed, and by this, regulation will not be a drag, but regulation will be used as a powerful propellant for realizing digital society.

So far, the effects and purposes have been summarized, but we will proceed to the examination of the system to be realized from now on.

Page 12 summarizes the requirements for the system. Regarding the requirements for achieving the purpose of the system, I have added more this time, including the points discussed at the Study Team Meeting so far. I believe that it should not be finalized this time, but should be updated continuously through discussion, so the title also says that it is an image under work.

Now, I would like to move on to the content. There are many, so I will introduce the main ones orally.
First, on the left side, the requirements for the data structures of A. In A1, A3, and A4, we list machine readable, timely, and past time. These three points are about what kind of law data is easy to use. We referred to the remarks of Professor Yagita, a member. Data use is also described in B7.

Next, A2 is the data format. For example, the law data is currently exchanged in the form of the law Standard XML, which has been discussed in previous meetings, but Dr. Tsunoda pointed out that it is basically compatible with AkomaNtoso, which is becoming a global standard, so I think it is necessary to pay attention to such compatibility and consistency with existing systems.

Next, regarding A9, in fact, law has a difficult issue of the enforcement date, which I will explain in detail later.

Next, regarding A12, it says that it is more than a notification. Currently, a notification is not a comprehensive data maintenance in the country, but a notification is also published in official gazettes, and it is written that since it can be effective as a law, it is necessary to be able to handle from laws to notifications at least in terms of system capacity.

Moving on to B in the middle, I would like to mention B-8, improving quality through the intervention of error checking functions.
Next, I would like to summarize B-11 and B-12. We have received many opinions from the members at the meetings so far so that they can be used for purposes other than law. It is quite difficult to say how much we will respond, but from the perspective of creating a good design system, I believe it is necessary to design with at least a wide perspective.

Going to the right side, C, is the user interface. I think it is necessary for the staff to use the system, and the system is troublesome, so if it is manual work, the purpose of the system cannot be achieved, and it is like putting the cart before the horse. So far, Mr. Horiguchi and Mr. Fujihara have pointed out that it is necessary to improve usability.

Going to the bottom right, D. As for other important points, for example, D-3, it is necessary to clarify the effects to be obtained. As Dr. Watanabe and Dr. Yasuno pointed out in previous meetings, a new system is necessarily less efficient at the beginning of introduction, but if you think about KPIs and track them, it will lead to an understanding of usability and effects.

In relation to this, Dr. Yoneda has pointed out in previous meetings that not only the technical aspects of the system, but also how to appeal that it is useful for creating a good law. I believe that we need to be aware of communication and consensus building with users.

I have stated the requirements above. Among these, some seem to be easy to realize, while others seem to be quite difficult. We need to deal with them in order, but this time, I would like to take up the ninth star of A, the date of enforcement, as a challenging Issue.

On page 13, I would like to explain the uncertainty of the date of enforcement. I understand that this has been discussed several times in previous meetings, but I would like to explain what is difficult.

As for the left-hand summary, once the amended law, that is, the change to the law, has been finalized, it is not yet determined when the change will be applied. This is extremely common. As a representative example, it is written that the enforcement date is a Cabinet Order, but in addition to this, in the case of enforcement on the date of promulgation, it will be changed depending on the status of deliberations in the Diet, or in some cases, it will be enforced on the date of entry into force of the Convention, but in such cases, the enforcement date will be changed due to external factors. With this alone, the enforcement date is only undetermined, but the problem is that multiple unenforced provision are amended for the same law, and the timing is not determined in advance, so to speak, there is a situation in which there is a collision on a daily basis.

Please take a look at the figure below. There are examples of conflicting provisions. On the left side, there are Amended Laws A and B, which are the same provision of the same law. Here, it is written as Article 1, but it says that Article 1 will be amended. If the Amended Laws A and B are enforced in that order, they will be applied without contradiction, that is, they will be integrated. However, if the Amended Laws A and B are enforced in that order, the name of Article 1 will be changed to Article 2 at the stage of the Amended Law B, so there will be no article to be amended, that is, it will not be integrated. In this case, the intended integrated provisions will not be enforced, and we must avoid this at all costs.

Returning to the center of the document, there have been coping technologies. For example, technologies such as adjustment regulations and revision of revision regulations have been used. The technical term adjustment regulations is shown in the red bubble in the figure below. The adjustment regulations are to read the revision regulations according to the order of enforcement.

Going back to the main text, it is also common to consider by the Enforcement Date Ordinance in addition to explicitly processing such as adjustment provisions. All of these operations have been managed manually until now. Unfortunately, this has led to a high risk of accidents.

Let's move on to the right. So far, I have mainly mentioned the problems at the stage of editing bills, but even the development of the public database is currently manual. In this context, I often hear that law can be managed by Git, but at least for law that has not been implemented, the implementation date is a problem, and I believe that it has a complex structure that cannot be expressed by a general version management paradigm.

On the other hand, we believe that it is essential to have a system that can manage data in consideration of uncertainties about the enforcement date in order to achieve the timely disclosure of law information that the system aims to achieve, as well as to provide highly reliable provisions that have not been enforced.
The above is the Issue of the uncertainty of the enforcement date. I believe that this Issue is quite difficult, but I have one proposal for a solution this time, so I will propose it on the next page.

On page 14, I would like to make a proposal on data structures that take into account the uncertainty of the enforcement date. This is the first part of the lead sentence above. The idea is to manage the entire data structure, including the correspondence on the time axis, by managing the amended provisions with the same enforcement date within a certain amended law as a unit, and maintaining the integrated provisions of the law Document for each combination in order of the enforcement date.

Let me explain this by using an image. For example, consider a case where there are two enforcement dates in a certain amended law. In the figure below, Amended Law 1 has an image in which the enforcement dates are blue and green together to form Amended Law 1. In this case, the idea is to divide the amended provisions by the unit in which the amendment dates are divided, and first manage which amended provisions collide. If the amended provisions can be decomposed in this way, there are amendment units A, B, and C in the figure, and a plurality of these amendment units revise law 1 in purple and law 2 in red, and it can be automatically determined whether or not they collide.

In addition, regarding the purple and red balloons on the lower right, you can see the pattern of the order of the enforcement dates of the amended provisions. What kind of blending provisions should be made in each pattern? Until now, those in charge of bills have managed these matters manually or in their minds, but by proposing and managing them, explicit and objective management will be possible, and we believe that omission of consideration will be prevented.

Returning to the lead sentence above, this is the second part. By automatically specifying the combination of the collision provision and the enforcement date and presenting it to the law editor, we believe that accidents due to manual management can be prevented. In addition, by being able to prepare the integrated text in advance, we believe that it is possible to provide highly reliable unenforced text in consideration of the enforcement date, and to disclose the integrated text immediately after enforcement. Such integrated text is used not only at the stage of publication, but also, for example, at the stage of formulating bills, for old and new parts, so I believe that it is highly useful data.

With the method described so far, at least collision detection and alerts can be realized. In addition, in the second part of the yellow box on the left side, the revised text says that it is manually registered based on automatic output using blending. I believe that this is basically the same for the new and old comparison table method, but it is possible to consider changing the operation to a format that is easy to automatically output. If that becomes possible, the flow will be simplified, and the automation of the entire process will be considered.

The above is your proposal, and we believe that more careful design is necessary in actually systemizing this. As a draft at this point, we would like to hear your opinions.

Next, I would like to move on to page 15. There are still many matters that have not yet been examined, so I have summarized them here as contents that should be examined in the future. Due to time constraints, it is difficult to cover them orally, but for example, on the left side, from the perspective of the text editor touched by the staff, or the perspective of the strictness of the examination in the middle, I believe that it is necessary to examine them specifically in the future. I would like to continue to receive your opinions on these.

It is the 16th page at the end. Here, it says that it is a working image as a tentative thing to realize the PoC item.

The first part of the lead sentence above, I think that it is necessary to realize it in parallel with the design of the system.

My second question is that I believe it is essential for an efficient validation to pay attention to existing research and projects as well as overseas initiatives.

As for the third point, I believe that the PoC itself can be considered as part of the consensus building process, and I believe that working on validation with related parties and implementation to Agile will lead to smooth system utilization in the future.
That is all for Material 1.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much.
As for the exchange of opinions, I would like to summarize it at the end, so I would like to move on to agenda item 2. In conducting the PoC that Assistant Yamauchi just explained, I was talking about the scope of stakeholders and stakeholders to be recognized, and in order to conduct the PoC while communicating with such people in an agile manner and receiving feedback, I was talking about wanting some kind of community, and Mr. Yoneda said that he would do it at his own place, so I would like you to report on that.

Mr. Yoneda, thank you for your explanation.

Mr. Yoneda: : Thank you for your introduction. I am Yoneda, a member. As requested, I would like to introduce an initiative called "Legal Information Practical Seminar 2022 Thinking about DX in the World of Law" at the education Center for Judicial Policy, Faculty of Law and Letters, Kagoshima University, where I am the Director of the Center.

The Legal Policy education Center, affiliated with the Faculty of Law and Letters of Kagoshima University, is a education that aims to promote legal research in the field of law and law practice at Kagoshima University, promote research and study on judicial policy, and thereby implement social contribution activities. Its common name is eLen, which I have mentioned several times, but it is a organization that has been engaged in social contribution activities. It collects examples of local government published on the web from all over Japan, compares them by searching them on a skewer, transmits a regulation database where you can download data for processing, and a database of bureaucrats and government posts in the Meiji period. It also provides legal consultation in judicial underpopulated areas such as remote islands, in addition to the study of law students, trainees, and young lawyers.

In January 2020, just before the novel coronavirus outbreak, the Center held a seminar for legal database vendors and publishers in conjunction with the version upgrade of eLen. Taking this opportunity, we have been making efforts to create opportunities for networking and exchanging opinions with people involved in legal information business, while visiting people who provide information to people involved in legal information business and receiving advice.

As we happened to be approached in this flow, we would like to take this further as a new project of the Center in fiscal 2022 and this fiscal year, and under the theme of the "Legal Information Practical Seminar 2022 Thinking about DX in the World of Law," which I mentioned earlier, we are conducting a series of seminars called "Digital Revolution of Legal Infrastructure."

Although the activities of this Review Conference are part of it, it is recognized that fundamental digitalization is rapidly developing in various aspects of the world of law, and in this project, I would like to take a panoramic view of this historical situation from an academic perspective and visualization the trend.

As I have indicated on page 2 of the materials, in this seminar, I would like to give priority to fields related to the generation and use of legal information that occupies the most basic position on the ground, such as national politics and local autonomy, legal practice, and research education in the field of law. The red underlined items on the left side of page 3 of the materials are the themes that I would like to do something about. The first digitalization on official gazettes and the second law on local government have already been held, but after this, although the order has not been decided, I would like to ask for your cooperation in the examination of Tokyo, and from today, there will be members of the Judicial System Department of the Ministry of Justice, and I would like to hold a seminar that deals with the treatment of case law information and information on court cases, how to preserve and secure law and rules, and how to develop the legal work of Tokyo, and I would like to hold a seminar that deals with this continuously, within and across fiscal years if possible.

On the right side of page 3 of the materials, there are fields that I believe are a little more interesting, and I would like to hold individual seminars on each of these fields.

As lecturers, we would like to make requests to officials from relevant ministries and agencies, as well as researchers and practitioners at the forefront of the relevant fields, so we would like to ask for your cooperation.

This seminar will be held in two stages. After the seminar provides information on current efforts and reports on the current situation, a workshop will be held about a week to 10 days later. Based on the seminar, we will listen to the efforts and perceptions of each private sector company, and have time to exchange opinions and impressions. We will develop individual plans in two parts, a seminar and a workshop. We would like to invite more and more interested parties and people like you mentioned here to participate in the seminar.

As already announced, on July 25, Mr. Shuhei Okubo, who is in charge of e-LAWS in Ministry and agency business Group, Digital Agency, introduced the progress of the discussion by the study team and the future direction of PoC.

In the second round, Mr. Takahiro Abe, a specialist in the official gazettes Department of the National Printing Bureau, who has the intention of actively participating in the PoC, gave a report on the site of the official gazettes publication and the details of the site. He gave a report on the future of official gazettes, what kind of system should be set up in the future, and what kind of contribution should be made to Reform of Working Practices. He gave a report that gives a realistic sense of the future of official gazettes and the enthusiasm of the people in charge of the National Printing Bureau toward it. We received applications from 200 and 170 people, respectively, and we had meaningful exchanges of opinions at seminars and workshops. Including the video distribution after the event, we have confirmed that more than 90% of the people who applied have watched it.

As I mentioned earlier, in this project, we will take up a wide range of themes as DX in the world of law, but we would like to follow the progress of the discussions of the "digitalization Review Team for Legal Affairs", and we plan to advance the project so that the parties concerned can provide a wide range of information, deepen discussions, and share the goals by dividing the technical aspect and the utilization aspect and creating detailed meetings such as sub-committees.

The digitalization of legal affairs can be said to be a natural flow of Japan in the near future, but in addition to the ministries and agencies concerned, there are related organizations including the Parliament and the courts, the National Diet Library, and everyone in private sector who has provided legal information so far, but in fact, the people concerned are individual parties, so I think it was difficult to discuss directly. Therefore, I would like to discuss across each wall and create a new relationship by sharing information using the functions of universities, which have the role of gathering and exchanging knowledge. Based on this feedback, I would like to contribute to the early realization of the study team and the digital consultation initiative itself.

In the future, in order to achieve useful results by having many related organizations and ministries and agencies participate in the PoC, we would like to expand the scope of participation to a wider range of PoC. We would appreciate your support and cooperation. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): , thank you very much.
All the meetings have been successful, and we have learned a lot from them.

Now, I would like to change the subject a little, but let's move on to Item 3 of the agenda, "Trial Implementation of the Process for Confirmation of Compliance with Digital Principles, etc. Pertaining to the Bill Scheduled to be Submitted to the Extraordinary Diet." The Minister Kono has assumed his position and said that the Digital Legislation Bureau will be set up immediately, and the function has been launched. Mr. Nakano, the Planning Officer in charge, will give a report. Thank you.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much for Nice to meet you. My name is Nakano from Digital Agency. I took over from Mr. Yagyu in July. I look forward to working with you in the future.

As Suga has just introduced, we have already implemented the process of confirming compliance with the Digital Principles on a trial basis for the bills to be submitted to the next extraordinary Diet session. I would like to explain about this initiative.

First of all, I would like to briefly review our efforts to date regarding the inspection and review of regulation in light of the Digital Principles. In December last year, the Cabinet Decision on the Digital Principles for Structural Reforms was made. As you know, in June this year, Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee decided on a comprehensive review plan, and based on this, we are conducting inspections and reviews of about 5,000 regulations on paper and in-person processes in law, which are designated as seven representative provision, including visual inspection regulation, on-site inspection, and written notice, and about 2,000 provision, which are subject to new inspections. As I will explain later, in the process of confirming the conformity to the Digital Principles, which is being implemented on a trial basis this time, inspections have been conducted for these seven representative regulations on paper and in-person processes.

The following is the material submitted to the Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group on August 30. In addition to the seven representative regulations on paper and in-person processes items that I explained earlier, I would like to explain the provisions that designate media such as floppy disk, which are subject to the Digital Principles Compliance Confirmation Process.

With regard to the current status of the provisions to designate a media such as floppy disk, in light of the fact that the Bulk Review Pro Plan also includes consideration of making applications, etc. by floppy disk, etc. online as a general rule, the Digital Ad Hoc Secretariat conducted a law search again and conducted detailed examination, and it was found that there are provisions to designate an individual provision such as floppy disk in approximately 1,900 media.

As a Issue related to such provisions, there is Issue, where the use of floppy disk, etc. is specified in the law that specifies administrative procedures, which is exempt from the Digital Procedure Act and makes it difficult to make procedures online. Second, there is Issue, where the use of old media is specified for purposes other than administrative procedures, such as the creation of name lists and registers by the administration, etc., which makes it unclear in law whether other new media, cloud, etc. can be used.

In light of this situation, we are presenting the list of law prepared by the Digital Liaison Office to each ministry, and are starting to consider policies for detailed examination, inspection, and review of floppy disk, including the provisions of law, etc. We plan to compile the review policies of each ministry by the end of this year and publish them as the Digital Liaison Office.

Next, this is the material submitted to Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee on June 3. So far, three specific directions have been indicated for the confirmation process of the conformity of law with the Digital Principles.

First, Digital Agency will formulate specific guidelines that can be independently considered by the Cabinet Office and each Ministry from the early stage of policy planning based on discussions at public meetings.

Second, the Digital Principles Compliance Verification Process will be incorporated into the legislative and other processes. Among the new law, etc., the Digital Principles Compliance Verification Process will be independently verified by Digital Agency prior to the preliminary examination by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau for proposed laws and ordinances, and will be verified by ministries and agencies prior to the decision by each law and prior to public comment for ministerial ordinances and lower ordinances. For existing Digital Agency, etc., the Digital Principles Compliance Verification Process will be inspected by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government after consideration by a public council based on the progress of technology, requests from the people, the status of implementation, and other factors.

In addition, in the Comprehensive Review Plan, the confirmation process of the new law, etc. was to be implemented on a trial basis from among the bills to be submitted to the Ordinary Session of the Diet in 2024.

Third, in order to design and institutionalize the process of coordinating in advance the system, procedure flow, and system for execution in Digital Agency, etc., which is determined after confirmation by law, etc., the process will be clarified in the basic policies and guidelines for the development and management of information systems, and digitalization will be carried out truly end-to-end.

I would like to introduce Minister for Digital Transformation Kono's statement on August 30 this year on the early implementation of the Digital Principles Compliance Confirmation Process.

Regarding Minister Kono's remarks, he said, "Yesterday, I explained to Prime Minister Kishida about speeding up efforts for the Digital Consultation.", "We are currently reviewing the regulations on paper and in-person processes through the Digi-in. For example, at the extraordinary Diet session to be convened this autumn, it is necessary to avoid the emergence of bills that include the provision, which goes against it. Therefore, I would like to establish the Digital Legislation Bureau in the Digi-in and thoroughly examine the bills that are scheduled to be submitted to the extraordinary Diet session this autumn.", and the Prime Minister said that he wants the digital reform to be implemented with the highest priority on speed, so I would like the Digital Legislation Bureau to be launched as soon as possible and thoroughly examined toward autumn. ", and" Today, the Digi-in Secretariat was established by 17 members of the Digital Legislation Bureau. We will examine whether there are any bills that will go against the regulations on paper and in-person processes that will be submitted this autumn. "

In response to this, under the Comprehensive Review Plan, the process of confirmation of compliance with the digital principles for new law, etc., which was to be implemented on a trial basis in 2024, that is, from among the bills to be submitted to the Ordinary Session of the Diet in 2024, has been advanced, and is being implemented on a trial basis for the bills to be submitted to the next extraordinary Diet session.

This is the outline of the draft of the Guidelines, which is indicated for each ministries and agencies. As the purpose and target, in order to further accelerate digital reform, we will check the provisions that are understood to require analog actions that fall under the seven representative regulations on paper and in-person processes items for the bills scheduled to be submitted to the next extraordinary Diet session, and the provisions that designate floppy disk and other media as I explained earlier.

In particular, as a confirmation method related to the seven representative regulations on paper and in-person processes items, we will confirm that there is no provision that imposes a regulations on paper and in-person processes that falls under the seven items, so-called PHASE1, and confirm whether it is at the PHASE2 or PHASE3 stage depending on the level of technology that can be used. If there is a provision that falls under PHASE1 as a result of this confirmation, or if there is a provision that falls under PHASE2 even though it should be separated from PHASE3, we will consider whether or not we can revise the draft in order to proceed with these PHASES. In addition, as a confirmation method related to the provisions to designate a media such as floppy disk, we will consider whether or not to change the provisions to make it clear that online procedural media, cloud, etc. can be used. provision

Finally, in light of this front-loading, we have updated the proposed process for the process of confirming compliance with the Digital Principles. The upper row is the one presented by the previous review team on May 13, but the guidelines were formulated in August this time, so we have updated them to be reviewed based on this trial. In addition, we have updated them to be confirmed on a trial basis from among the bills to be submitted to the next extraordinary Diet session, and the scope of the new law will be gradually expanded.

The above is Material 3, and Material 4 is the main body of the draft of the guidelines I explained earlier, so I would like to omit the explanation.
That's all for my explanation. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much.
Now, that's all for the explanation of the materials from the Secretariat, so from here on, I would like to have a Q & A and exchange of opinions. The meeting itself is open until 14:30.

First of all, in relation to Document 1 that Mr. Yamauchi explained, I have received several comments from Mr. Masashima, a member of the Working Group, in advance. I would like to begin with an introduction of those comments and a response to them.
Mr. Yamauchi, please.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): , so we would like to introduce it and answer it here.

I hope you understand that I will report an extract of the questions you asked in the email. I received two items, so I will go one by one.

My first question is, "Is it correct to understand that the draft proposal you gave me this time is a proposal that involves a change in the workflow of the current legal affairs? There is a way to solve a technically complex Issue that does not cause accidents, but it is also true that if the condition syntax of software becomes complex, there will always be bugs. I believe that the lesson that Japanese corporate society has learned so far is that if systems and technologies try to absorb problems premised on existing workflows, good things will not happen.

Therefore, digitalization must learn from these past lessons and make the system simple, prioritize high scalability, and be willing to change the analog workflow of legal affairs. Is it correct to understand that the drafts and proposals you have received are based on such a premise? "

First of all, regarding this point, I believe that it is as you pointed out that the workflow should be improved. In addition, I believe that it is necessary to consider from the perspective of what is essentially necessary for the flow, but for example, regarding the date of enforcement, there may be matters that are essentially undecided, such as the date of promulgation and the date of issuance of the Convention, so I believe that it is necessary to consider such matters. In any case, I believe that the system design and the flow should be considered as a set. This is my first question.

The second question is about the transitional measure. You asked, "If there is a revision of the law, the issue will be whether or not some action is necessary due to the revision of the law for certain acts that were conducted before the revision of the law. The so-called transitional measure covers this, but how is this transitional measure handled in the legal affairs of this digitalization?"

Regarding this, of course, the transitional provision is considered to be the scope of this system. Then, how should it be treated? The transitional provision itself is different from the amended provision, and it is considered to function as an integrated provision. Therefore, I believe that it can be treated in the same manner as the new regulation provisions and the supplementary provisions that are not amended provisions.
That's all for the questions Dr. Masushima asked.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much.
Then, from now on, I would like to designate a person who raises his hand.
Mr. Watanabe, please.

Watanabe Member: , Thank you for your continued support. I am Attorney Watanabe. I would like to make four points today.

This time, I have been reading the materials from the Secretariat distributed in advance, and listening to today's presentation, I think it took a very long time. It was a wonderful material and a wonderful presentation. First of all, I would like to say this at the beginning. I feel that it took a very long time, and I think we have become a really wonderful team.

First, I have a question for Mr. Yamauchi. First of all, in relation to the digital originals of law and others, in relation to the examination by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, I would like to ask your opinion on how the Cabinet Legislation Bureau will be involved as a user.

As a second question, in relation to this, I imagine that the digitalization of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau examination process, which is called "workflow" in Dr. Masushima's words, will probably take place. I would be grateful if you could tell us your thoughts on how the digitalization of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau examination will take place together.

With regard to your third question, I believe that in using this system in the future, the development of digital human resources in government offices, for example, the use of this tool and education, will be a problem. I would like to know whether Mr. Digital Agency will be playing a central role in promoting this.

Finally, regarding your fourth question, I would like to ask Mr. Nakano in Material 3. When I saw it, I could see that a new process has been added to confirm whether or not it conforms to digitalization prior to the prior review by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.

I am sorry if there are any misunderstandings, but in that case, the conventional schedule will probably become tighter, and I felt that I would have to clear two examinations. I was wondering if it would be possible to make a digitalization of the workflow and process for both the Legislative Bureau's examination and the Digital Legislation Bureau examination. For example, it would be great if I could make a digitalization of the status of the person who is currently conducting the examination, rather than the status of the email. I would be grateful if you could consider making a digitalization of the workflow for this point.
Although it has become longer, these are the 4 items. Thank you.

Secretariat (Suga): and Mr. Nakano?

Secretariat (Yamauchi): , I would like to respond to the three points at the beginning.

First of all, I would like to ask you about what will become of Cabinet Legislation Bureau as a user. Since the examination is the responsibility of Cabinet Legislation Bureau, I believe that Cabinet Legislation Bureau will be positioned as one of the owners of this system, and I believe that it is necessary for you to participate in the examination. At present, we are at the stage of collecting information in a place that is not open to the public, but regarding this, we are currently formulating a plan for the overall picture of the system and the scope of the effort, and I believe that after that, the Cabinet Legislation Bureau should be involved in the examination.

Next, I received a question on how to proceed with the digitalization of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. We have not yet reached a detailed design of the process, but I recognize that, for example, the examination is being conducted based on whether the revised text will be incorporated into the already promulgated or amended Articles on Integration. Therefore, highly reliable law information prior to the enforcement of the Act is required, and I believe that it is necessary to carefully examine the workflow of such matters first and consider necessary measures. At present, it has not been worked out in detail, but we would like to consider it.

My third question is about human resources, in particular how to use tools. At the stage of design the system and using it, of course, how to use the tools will be developed in an easy-to-understand manner for users. Although I have not yet thought about what format I will use, I believe it is necessary to make it easy to use by making it easy to link with the system that users usually use. In addition, I believe it is necessary to assume at the design stage how to use the system that has actually been created, including the flow of getting used to it.
That is all for the first three points.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much for . Thank you for your question.
Exactly as you pointed out, there are two organizations to check, so that there will be no confusion or duplication of effort among ministries. We would like each ministry to think independently before the preliminary examination, for example, from around autumn, with the Ordinary Session in mind. We would also like to make sure that there are no provisions like those in regulations on paper and in-person processes, and we would like to use digital technology as much as possible to see efficiently and effectively and conduct the examination as soon as possible. Cooperation with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau on systems has been conducted on a trial basis since autumn, so we have not reached that point yet, but as you pointed out, we would like to proceed with consideration toward full-scale implementation. Thank you very much.

Watanabe Member: Thank you for your valuable teaching. I learned a lot from it. I look forward to your continued support.

Secretariat (Suga): If we get to the point you just pointed out at the end, I think it will be the time for Mr. Yamauchi and Mr. Nakano's discussions to merge and make a design together. That is the original problem awareness of the Discussion Team, so I would like to clench my teeth and address it firmly. Thank you very much.
Member Yagita, please.

Yagita Member: I am Yagita of Legalscape. Thank you very much for your presentation.
I would like to add one point and one comment on Document 1. If you don't mind, could you please share page 12 of Document 1?

First of all, as Mr. Yamauchi mentioned in my previous remarks, I would like to share the contents of my remarks on the data structures on the left side of the screen and the requirements for design at the digitalization Frontline Workshop on Legislation, which Mr. Yoneda introduced earlier.

As a provider of legal tech services to various users, including lawyers, we collect Issue held by users regarding the current disclosure of law. There are three main points. First, there is no digital original copy, and I think that fact is not known. Second, there is no information on law in the past and its differences, and there is no history. Finally, in our hearings, users often say that law information around law is not linked.

As you stated on page 12 of the slide you are currently showing, I believe that the required conditions for the disclosure of law are that all data should be provided in a correct, timely, machine-readable form and up to the past. I understand that all of these elements are included in this. In particular, it is quite important to have all data entered in a correct state, and at present, there are a certain number of lawyers who do not know the fact even though there is no digital original copy, but it is truly expected that this is properly secured.

In terms of timeliness, as stated in A3 here, the background to this is that, for example, if data is released through the legal affairs system one week after it is released in official gazettes, people who really want to know about it as soon as possible will go to official gazettes to read paper or PDF, and the effect of creating this system will be considerably reduced.

In addition, I think the point is that it is machine-readable. After the government releases the date, it is difficult for so-called private sector companies to do business with it if it is not machine-readable. It is difficult for a market for legal tech to be created and for various companies to compete with each other.

Lastly, regarding the "up to the past," which is written in the fourth column, if the past is included, for example, in order to respond to this incident five years ago, the people will be able to see that the Civil Code of five years ago is necessary, so I think this is also quite important, and I have made a supplementary statement.

The second point is something like an opinion. I may not fully understand this, but I wonder if the problem you pointed out on the previous page can be solved by the data structure that takes into account the uncertainty of the enforcement date you mentioned.

On the other hand, I think this is a quite difficult issue, and I understand that it is one of the factors that complicate the overall architecture and implementation. Therefore, although it is a premise that we should continue to consider this, I thought it would be possible to exclude these parts from the scope at least in the PoC. As a way of proceeding, whether or not to respond to this matter, I thought it would be better to consider including or not including these parts in the PoC depending on the cost such as the number of man-hours in addition to the survey on how the workflow of each user, for example, the administration, will change and how the UX for the general public who use the law will change.

I'm sorry that it's been a long time, but to summarize it a little more generally, I think that there will be several such highly difficult parts in the future. While drawing a roadmap for actual operation in detail, I think that it is necessary to continue to consider to what extent such highly difficult parts will be dealt with in the discussion of the scope of the PoC that we are about to do right now and the discussion of what process will be used to create the product for actual operation based on the PoC.
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion at length.

Secretariat (Suga): .
Mr. Yamauchi, how are you?

Secretariat (Yamauchi): First of all, thank you for your follow-up on the first point.
We believe that this system should be examined in view of the utilization of data, so we believe that we have received opinions that will lead to very useful discussions.

With regard to your second comment, I believe that you have given us a fairly important perspective, and I believe that there are certainly things that can be dealt with even if we do not use the data structure that is currently listed as a solution to the difficult issue of the enforcement date, and I believe that it is necessary to firmly grasp whether it is really necessary to do this, whether it can be done in the first place, and what kind of effect will be produced if it becomes popular, and I believe that it is necessary to conduct an investigation. It is written in the guidelines and other documents that we will not do it all at once, but will do it consistently, and I believe that such a perspective is necessary.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): 's three basic items, which he said at the seminar, and have discussed them many times. Thank you very much.
Next, Mr. Fujiwara, please give us your comments.

FUJIWARA Member: FUJIWARA. Thank you very much for your explanation today.
First of all, I wanted to give my impression that Mr. Yoneda's seminar was wonderful. I spoke the first time and listened to the second time, but I really understood the sense of the field very well. This kind of reform, BPR, and DX require both top-down and bottom-up, and the sense of the field must be understood, so the field is thinking about this, and I think it will be very useful to understand various things, including the fact that this will change if the premise changes. I have high expectations for you. For now, I just wanted to give my impression.
I would like to make three more comments.

The first is a detailed discussion. In relation to Dr. Masushima's question earlier, there was a discussion about transitional provisions. I had a feeling that only those provisions that were to be followed in the past would need to be treated in a special manner. I thought that the provisions that had disappeared from the law would remain in force, so I should seriously consider how to respond to them. This is a minor comment.

Two more. Actually, I have a comment about the draft on page 14 on the slide I just showed you.
The first one is quite similar to Mr. Yagita's comment. I am thinking about doing it, but in the sense that it seems to be difficult, I have the same impression. In particular, the number of cases will increase. The first person to make a document will make only one pattern, so it is fine to make all of them. The next person will make two articles for two patterns, either before or after, and the third will be about nine patterns, and the number of cases will increase rapidly. I do not know how many amendments will be made, but it is possible that the number of amendments will be extremely large, so it is probably not necessary to always integrate all the patterns and make a sentence. If you leave it alone, you will tend to make a program that divides everything into logical cases, but I think it is probably better not to do such a thing, and I think I must decide how much I will do.

On the other hand, I think this can happen because there are many omissions, so I feel that it is very useful for the system to show that there can be such a pattern, so it shows it, but I somehow feel that such a rule that it is not necessary to create all of them seems to be good, but in any case, I feel that it is better to think about it. Basically, I think that trying too hard to do what I can do or doing everything is a cause of failure.

The other is an operational change that allows a revised sentence that is easy to automatically output in the same page 14. I have always thought that this is probably a great point. In particular, after seeing this slide, I was thinking while looking at the XML scheme of e-Gov. I am not an engineer, so I am an amateur. On the contrary, I think there are many people who are easier to understand by an amateur, so I will talk about it.

For example, if a human being makes a normal correction in Word or Ichitaro Yamazaki, such as deleting a certain article, I think he or she will select a paragraph, delete it, and then delete and change the article number after that. However, in terms of XML data, I think it should be easy to write it as an automatic work in which this tag is deleted from here, and then all the numbers in the tag of this article number are reduced by 1. When you think about it carefully, it is similar to a revised sentence as a programming instruction.

Perhaps there was some discussion before, but I believe that the revised text basically meant that when computer programming was not digital, it would be written in language. Therefore, I think it is necessary to think about how to express the content of the revision in the future. However, I feel that it will be fine to view it from either direction by aligning it with the way of manipulating XML so that it does not deviate from it. From such a perspective, I thought it would be better to consider how much the revised text should be maintained and from where it should be changed.
That's all for my comments.

Secretariat (Suga): .
First of all, Mr. Yamauchi, is there any place where Mr. Nakano can make a comment?

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much for , is still effective, as it has been in the past, and it has been discussed a lot, but in short, it has been dissolved in law and has disappeared from the text, but there is an argument about what kind of text is effective and whether it is useful. I am sorry to ask you a reverse question, but what do you think about it?

FUJIWARA Member: Basically, the provisions of "still following" and "still effective" are really easy to overlook, and from the perspective of practitioners, they are so desirable that they think that there is a database where all of them are listed and can be hit by a search, so I think it is convenient for the people if there is one, but I don't know where and in what form it is good to have it.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much for Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): .
Mr. Yamauchi, please.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): , I would like to answer your second and third questions.
First of all, regarding the second point, I believe that it is difficult to deal with all of them, and that it is not necessary or should not be done to write everything in a logical case division. Although it shows that there is a conflict, it is not necessary to write it, and it is a cause of failure to do what you can do too much. I would like to say this, although it may be my personal opinion.

What is being done by those who write the provisions before and after the enforcement date? For example, if two or three stages of amendments conflict in the same place, it is necessary for the person in charge in law to ensure that there is consistent integration in each stage. Therefore, we write a comparison table of the old and new for each stage to confirm that there is no conflict and that even if there is a conflict, it will be integrated properly. In fact, I think this is an element that will always be included in the mental model of the person in charge, and I think there is one way of thinking that this is to be clarified.

On the other hand, it is common to assume in advance that the law will be enforced in such a pattern, rather than covering all of these complex patterns. In that case, without establishing adjustment regulations, some governments take measures to implement the law in this order when formulating the enforcement date ordinance. If we fail to consider the enforcement date ordinance, it will be an accident, so we need to think about it carefully, but it is certainly troublesome to integrate all of them, and I thought it would be necessary to consider a more easy-to-use way of using the law, including the management flow that we have been doing. That is my second question.

Third, when considering the revised provisions, for example, from the perspective of the idea of editing XML tags in this way, or from the perspective of organizing the format of such revisions, I believe that you pointed out. When thinking about the output of the revised text or whether it will be integrated, I am sure that you are thinking about it, and although I am still not studying it, I believe that there are probably such efforts in e-LAWS, and I would like to think about a format that is consistent with the XML data structure while studying it.
That's all.

FUJIWARA Member: Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much.
Then, Mr. Tsunoda, please.

Tsunoda Member: Thank you, Regarding your comment on page 14 of the slide, I think that the proposal to remove it from the PoC is quite good. My concern is that what you have considered in detail may not be conveyed to too many people, and I feel that it would be a bit of a waste if that happens.

In that sense, I would like to ask you to conduct a simulation before the PoC so that many people can get a sense of satisfaction. In the simulation of law, a method by inference using logical expression was popular about 30 years ago even with artificial intelligence in the past. At that time, it was quite troublesome to handle law. For example, it is difficult to deal with situations where the text may rewrite the text itself, or where a description that existed has disappeared and become meaningless. It is quite troublesome to deal with a general solution for such situations by a mathematically guaranteed and theoretically perfect method. In such cases, the fastest way is to simulate and actually operate it, which I think is popular.

When I think about such things, there are questions about whether IDs existed in the first place, such as whether the provisions were deleted or the provisions were shifted when the provisions were revised, or whether the identifiers that serve as the IDs of the provisions were changed as a result. However, in the case of an ordinary database architecture, it is impossible for the IDs to change, but I think these problems tend to occur.

Since this is related to the internal management of IDs and the full-scale architecture issue, I think Mr. Yagita was concerned earlier. I think it would be better to have a more easy-to-understand structure, and since it is also related to the internal structure, it would be better to have something specific before the PoC, or separately, rather than the minimum functional requirements based on the purpose, such as the PoC. I think the resources are limited, so I didn't mean to leave it to Mr. Yamauchi alone, but I thought it would be better to conduct a simulation separately from the PoC in some form.

I thought it might be necessary to have an architecture that is not merely a convenience in development. For example, there should be an ID separate from the article name (the part of the article "Article 0") of the article, which will continue to exist regardless of the absolute time series. Until now, law written in writing has been used as an ID to some extent, but now we are in an age where a large amount of data can be stored in storage, so it is also a matter of archiving. I think it would be good to consider an architecture that has a wide foundation behind it, in which data is accumulated behind the scenes, or under the surface, in a form that does not disappear, and one side of it is output as an actual revised bill or a living law, like the tip of an iceberg. It means a form that is not a stack of fragments. As an idea, I thought it would be good if you could conduct a simulation on the assumption of such a thing.

Secretariat (Suga): .
How about a simulation? Mr. Yamauchi, do you have any comments?

Secretariat (Yamauchi): 's awareness of the problem and my understanding.
My current idea is still a rough draft, and I am not sure if a simulation covering all scenarios, for example, has been completed. Therefore, I think you are pointing out that it is not yet ready to be boiled down, or it is not at the stage where it can be taken as a proof of concept at this point. Is that correct?

Tsunoda Member: Thank you, Yes, I think that's fine.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): .
In that sense, I believe that we need to work on this further, and whether this will work in the form of a simulation or a prototype as proposed by you, at the beginning of the PoC, I believe that a PoC to be conducted at hand is rather necessary, and although it is not difficult for me to make it, I would like to brush up on the materials in the future, including the fact that I will consider the method and consider various scenarios.

I believe that you pointed out the importance of ID. In addition to considering the position of the revised law, ID will be very important when referring to it at the stage of data utilization, so I would like to consider design including that.
That's all.

Tsunoda Member: Thank you, .
I would like you to do exactly that when you talk about conducting a simulation. Until now, the word agile has been mentioned many times in meetings such as Mr. Digital Agency's, but what you just said is an agile, especially popular prototyping method, so I thought it would be a sample approach. I may not know if I can really go to the end with the image as proposed, but I can agree with the method. I myself am interested in the field of research, so I would like to help you if there is anything I can do. Thank you.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much for your very encouraging comments.
If we end up with a service that is completely different from what I just described, then this is where the team wants to recognize that Agile development worked.
Next, I would like to ask a question from Mr. Yasuno.

Yasuno Member: Thank you, . I have a slightly bad signal, so I will excuse myself without a video.
First of all, I would like to thank the team for incorporating the discussion into the materials very well, and I would like to make three comments.

First of all, I thought about the uncertain implementation date that you were talking about. First of all, as Member Yagita said, there has been a law before the implementation for a long time, and I thought that if updates occur frequently, a combination explosion may occur. I am not sure if I understand this well, but I would like to know how often updates occur. If there is not much of such a thing, it would be fine. If there is, it would be quite a problem.

As Mr. Yagita said, I think there is one point about how detailed the issue is. Looking at page 13, there is an expression that it is extremely common for the date of enforcement to be uncertain, so I think it is a case in which a large number of incidents occur unexpectedly. My first comment is that I would be happy if I could understand the feeling of the skin, such as how many incidents occur in a year.

Regarding the second point, I am in favor of the idea of excluding such a high-difficulty part from the PoC, and if all such detailed cases must be handled by the PoC, I think we will not be able to allocate resources to important parts, so I am basically in favor of it.

On the other hand, if you could make a list of the high-difficulty problems that you encountered in the PoC, I thought it would be very useful in thinking about how much man-hours it would take to actually make a implementation after the PoC is completed in the future. Therefore, there is a schedule and a phase to be cut, and I thought it would be good to make a list of the detailed problem list at the PoC stage or immediately after the PoC stage to some extent. I thought it would be good to make a list of the Ukami.

The third comment is that I think there will probably be various detailed problems such as the uncertainty of the enforcement date, and I thought it would be good to think about one thing when thinking about the workflow, such as what to do if a contradiction that cannot be logically solved occurs, as Dr. Yoneda said, after the actual operation. If a certain kind of exception or error occurs, if you think about how to solve it in advance, it will be possible to prevent future problems.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): .
What do you think, Mr. Yamauchi?

Secretariat (Yamauchi): Thank you very much for your 3 items.
First of all, regarding the number of cases in which the enforcement dates of the first point conflict with each other, I do not have the figures in my possession. For example, the PoC may start by confirming the facts of such matters, but I believe that this is common in the situation. However, the number of law submitted each year is limited, so I believe that it will be within the scale.

As you mentioned earlier, I think it is necessary to find out how much effect will be achieved by doing this, for example, how much time will be saved by doing this, and this point is also related to the second point. I think it is necessary to understand the actual situation of how many high-level tasks are necessary. That is the first and second points.

With regard to the third point, if there is no mistake in your understanding of the question, I understand that design is necessary in areas that are different from what was expected in such a system and that require manual labor, which will be described later. I believe that such areas are also necessary, and I believe that manual labor by humans, for example, emergency response, will inevitably occur, so design that pays attention to such areas is also necessary.
That's all.

Yasuno Member: Thank you, .

Secretariat (Suga): Then, Member Horiguchi, I would like to ask you a favor.

Horiguchi Member: I'm Horiguchi . Nice to meet you. Thank you for explaining the materials today.
I would like to make some comments on Handout 1.

First of all, regarding page 12 of Material 1, as I have seen this, I understand that various requirements, including API, are being considered. Since I am not an engineer myself, I would like to state several viewpoints as a person who operates the system business.

As you pointed out, there are concerns that some APIs will be created too much, and compared to private service, they may become obsolete. From this perspective, I understand that the area in which private sector can enter will change depending on the point at which the API interface is cut off.

Against this backdrop, we recognize that the government plays an important part in organizing the digital original documents in digitalization, which is a field in which the public and private sectors are strong. Overall, I feel that it would be better to consider the utilization of private service for fields that are comparable to the level of private sector or have a market in private service, based on the perspective of the division of roles between the public and private sectors, such as the efficiency of work, the way Kasumigaseki works, and usability.

In addition, regarding page 16 of Material 1, I believe that you pointed out that we should pay attention to existing research and existing projects by industry, government, and academia, as well as overseas initiatives. I feel that this is a very important perspective. With regard to this perspective, the corporation to which I belong also conducts government agency initiatives with Mr. business improvement within existing projects, so if there is anything that can be useful in your projects, PoC validation, or future development consideration, I would like to be of some help.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): Should I recognize that was a cheering song? Thank you.
Then, Mr. Yoneda, nice to meet you.

Mr. Yoneda: I believe that today's discussion has been mostly led by the discussion on the structure of the database, which leads to Reform of Working Practices. I would like to report a little on what was confirmed as the outcome of the seminar.

I believe that the important aspects of this initiative are the creation of law before it comes out, the utilization of private sector and the border between private sector and the government, and the preservation of Okinawa. So far, the creation of Okinawa has been discussed in detail by the government, but I do not think that information on the utilization of Okinawa has yet been collected. For example, the technology to integrate Okinawa into Okinawa is owned by each vendor, and each vendor has its own database, system to integrate Okinawa into Okinawa, and work organization. We have not yet sufficiently clarified the information on what kind of things there are, so I think it is necessary to ask Okinawa to clarify it again. In addition, the experience of handling legal texts in data is overwhelmingly owned by Okinawa, so I think it is necessary to learn from it.

Furthermore, from the perspective of the preservation of law, as there was a discussion about law in the past, the Japanese law Directory, which has been preserved for a long time by the National Diet Library, is public, and it is a system that can be used free of charge by all the people of Japan. In addition, court precedents and court cases using it will be published, and I think it is necessary to expand the database or information of the entire region.

In particular, from the perspective of how to get the digital original copy out of the government, engineers may think that the digital original copy is one in the world of electronic zero one, and that is the original copy. But what we actually see is probably several versions, such as PDF printed on paper, on a website, or in XML data for utilization. However, I think it is the result of discussions so far in the seminar that we must recognize it as a group in which the contents are the same. Based on this, I would like to have discussions going forward.

The other thing is, as I mentioned earlier in education, legal research needs to be reviewed. In Japan's law education, regarding the know-how to use the database, which is overflowing, education has been systematically started for the first time since the establishment of the law school. However, the education content of the law school is leaning toward the bar examination, which has reduced the importance and the amount of effort in the field from the classes. Regarding the method of this research, I would like to say it is as simple as possible, but I have come to think that it is necessary to discuss how to provide digital original documents and legal information and how to use them while being aware of what kind of legal research can lead to an efficient and good method. Therefore, I have expressed my opinion. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): .
Mr. Yamauchi, how are you?

Secretariat (Yamauchi): I received several points. Regarding the utilization mentioned in the beginning, I am aware that it should be included in the continued consideration in this review, and that it is a requirement, but I have not yet been able to organize it in detail. I would like to discuss what kind of data disclosure is desirable while further refining it in future discussions and investigating use cases.

In addition, for example, in the case of official gazettes, there will be discussions about the original version, but I believe it is necessary to discuss how the original version should be used.

Of course, the perspective of preservation should also be considered, so I would like to consider that as well.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): .
As was the case in Professor Yoneda's seminar, we recognize that there is a considerable difference in the way people view law's digital original copy from the perspective of archiving and the way people view it as living legal information, which is characteristic of legal tech companies. From the perspective of archiving, I think there is a need for a certain degree of stability, and a need for it to be fixed for a certain period of time rather than changing at any time. So, how to balance this is very difficult, but I think it is an important issue.

Also, regarding the keyword "group," as I mentioned earlier, I am discussing this with the relevant ministries and agencies in the context of digitalization in official gazettes. It is an important point to discuss how to handle discrepancies in various media. When both paper and electronic documents are original documents, I recognize that it is necessary to discuss whether we should be exempt from liability in the event of a discrepancy. I hope that this team will continue to discuss this.

Now that it is time, I would like to conclude today's proceedings. Is that all right?

If there are no objections to today's discussion, I would like to create the minutes, check them with everyone, and make all the materials public.

Thank you very much for your time today. We look forward to your continued support.