Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee (5th)

Overview

Date and time: Thursday, June 8, 2023 (2023) from 16:00 to 18:00
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. Change of Members
  2. Explanation from Nakagaki Member
    - About the Smart Security Promotion survey
  3. Explanation from the Secretariat
    - Progress of "Technology-based regulatory reform" and how to proceed for the time being
  4. Exchange of opinions
3. Adjournment

Materials

Minutes, etc.

Date and Time

Thursday, June 8, 2023 (2023) from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Location

Held online

Members present

Chairman

Hiroshi Esaki, Digital Agency Senior Expert (Architecture)

Members

Noriko Endo (Distinguished Professor, Keio University Global Research Institute)
Yusaku Okada (Professor, Department of Management Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Keio University)
Keiko Ogawa (Certified Public Accountant, Banking Capital Markets Leader LegTech Leader Partner, EY Strategy and Consulting Co., Ltd.)
Tsukasa Ogino (Representative Director of the security Council for Important Consumer Products)
KAWAHARA Yoshihiro (Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo)
Yumi Kawabata
Taro Shimada (Representative Executive Officer, President and CEO, Toshiba Corporation)
Shinji Suzuki (Designated Professor, The University of Tokyo Institute for Future Initiatives, Director of Fukushima Robot testing Field, Fukushima Innovation Coast Initiative Promotion Organization)
Takao Someya (Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo)
Keisuke Toyoda (Specially Appointed Professor, Institute of Industrial Science)
Takao Nakagaki (Professor, Faculty of Creative Science and Engineering, School of Science and Engineering, Waseda University)
Osamu Nakamura (Professor, Faculty of Environmental and Information Science, Keio University)
Ayumu Nagai (Representative Director and President of Astamuse Corporation)
Daiyu Nobori (Director of the Cyber Technology Laboratory, Information-Technology Promotion Agency)
Yutaka Matsuo (Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo)

Overview

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh time, we will open the fifth meeting of the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee. Members are invited to participate online this time as well. We have set up a time for exchanging opinions in the second half of the meeting, but as in the past, we will use Webex chat to listen to opinions and questions from participants as needed during the explanation. Please do not hesitate to post your comments.

In addition, as part of the project "Survey and Research for Improvement of Technology Map (Technology Demonstration for Review of regulations on paper and in-person processes)" this fiscal year, the Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc. will be in charge of supporting the operation of this committee. I hope you will understand this.

Then, I would like to ask Chairman Ezaki to proceed with the proceedings from now on. Chairman Ezaki, thank you very much.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . I, Ezaki, will continue to serve as chairman this fiscal year. Thank you very much.

Today's proceedings are as follows. First of all, I would like to ask for a report from the Secretariat on the change of the members of the Committee.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh Document 1 shows the members and observers of the Committee. At the request of the President of the National Research and development Institute, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Mr. Kazuo Kyuma, and Mr. Hiroshi Saito, Director of the Digital Architecture and Design Center of the Information-Technology Promotion Agency, have resigned at the end of last fiscal year. Each of the organizations to which they belong will continue to be able to participate as observers. That's all for my report.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . We would like to invite both organizations to participate as observers. Thank you very much.

Next, I would like to ask Member Nakagaki to explain about the Smart Security Promotion survey.

Nakagaki Member: Nakagaki. I would like to thank you for this opportunity today.

I believe that smart security was one of the predecessors of the "Evaluation of Advanced Electrical Facility Security Technology and validation Project" committee established by the Electric Power Safety Division of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in 2017.

I am conducting research on CCS, which is a method of separating, recovering, and immobilizing CO2, in regulatory reform. Until about 15 years ago, I worked at the Energy Equipment Research Institute of Toshiba Corporation. I have a license as a chief electricity engineer and served as the chairman of the JIS revision committee for thermal power generation. Against this background, I have participated in the committee as a member specializing in thermal power generation from the previous committee to the present. I believe that this is the background why I was asked to join the technology-based Waseda City Promotion Committee.

The materials this time were compiled based on a survey called the Smart Safety Promotion Questionnaire, which was conducted as a project of the National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (NITE). I am the chairman of the Smart Safety Promotion Committee, so I will explain as a member this time.

First of all, I would like to explain the situation in the electrical safety field. On the upper left of page 2 is the number of power outages per year. Since there were 3.11 in 2011, the duration of power outages has temporarily extended like this, but the number of power outages seems to be really one or so. On the other hand, electrical safety accidents have been increasing slightly since 1990. In particular, those caused by wind, rain, and water disasters have been increasing from time to time. While there is an increasing trend like this, earthquakes are entering an active period, and the number of construction projects due to aging degradation has been increasing. This means that the number of old vintage stock is increasing, but at the same time, due to climate change, various renewable energy facilities are also increasing.

Since small-scale facilities are distributed, the number of construction projects increases, and when abnormal weather occurs, various failures of thermal power and hydraulic power will increase. The importance of maintenance and inspection is increasing due to such unplanned outages, but on the other hand, in terms of labor power, due to population decline and aging, there is a chronic shortage of essential workers. Not only goods but also human resources are in short supply, and it is said that there is no time to wait for smarter security, in short, labor saving.

Therefore, in order to objectively evaluate the technical validity of new safety methods, the Smart Safety Promotion Committee was established to confirm that a certain level of safety is maintained. As described in Note 1 on page 3, the Smart Safety Action Plan is implemented as an initiative within the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. In order to evaluate the technical validity of new safety technologies, Mr. NITE, who has been involved in the field of product safety for many years, is implementing the plan.

The promotion committee catalogs and announces the technologies that have been confirmed. The idea is to contribute to improving the safety level of business operators and rationalizing operations to save labor as much as possible.

The committee consists of eight people with academic experience in electrical safety or individual specialized technologies. Depending on the content of the deliberation, people related to industry organizations such as the FEPC are included.

We plan to hold evaluation committee meetings once or twice per project, and increase or decrease the number of meetings as necessary. For example, we currently divide the project into two parts: basic elemental technologies and security technology models. While sufficient data has not yet been accumulated for basic elemental technologies, we discuss the technology once because it is a technology that should be scooped up, and discuss the security technology model twice based on the assumption that it will be actually used. We hold committee meetings for four to eight projects per year. In principle, the detailed parts of the explanatory materials are not disclosed, but seven technology catalogs have been released as confirmed contents. The smart security technology catalog can be viewed on the NITE website, and we are publishing and organizing it. We broadly divide the project into two parts: security technology models and basic elemental technologies according to the level of TRL of the technology. We expect that the project that requires data accumulation will be evaluated as basic elemental technologies as soon as possible, and that the opportunities for joint development will be increased by improving development motivation and further demonstration experiments.

In conducting survey and implementing such smart security, we evaluate the current level of implementation, near-future targets assuming twenty twenty-five, and final targets using a point system. In addition, we conducted a questionnaire with evaluation items on the status of efforts and progress.

Today, I would like to introduce a summary of the two years, the first year and the following year. In the first year, even the existence of the Smart Safety Promotion Committee is still not well known, so I am working to understand how much awareness has advanced in one year.

As described in (I) to (iv) on page 6, the purpose of the implementation is to set items so that feedback can be given to our activities by mainly understanding the progress status and considering promotion measures. Details will be provided later.

The first collection was conducted in 2021, and a total of 156 cases were collected from power generation facility operators who have transmission, distribution, transformation, and demand facilities.

The questions are in the form of a questionnaire form made in Excel. There are nine questions, and five of them, from management attitude to development traction, are shown in radar charts. We would like to use the recognition level of the Promotion Committee, what kind of expectations and roles it has as data for our own activities. These items are also listed.

As it is a matter of consideration, we basically collect it without a name. It is no use to set the degree of detail for the survey, so we use a point system, for example, 5 points for those who have already introduced it and 3 points for some of them.

In general, there were many business operators who had a slightly difficult understanding of the definition and meaning of the katakana word "smart" in terms of the smartization of electrical safety. Therefore, it was necessary to carefully explain what this was at the initial stage. When asked about the future image of the smartization of electrical safety, it was recognized that the introduction of IoT devices and the use of AI were essential, and there were a certain number of responses such as hesitation to introduce such devices or suspension of consideration, and I think that follow-up is necessary.

Let's move on to the explanation of survey. The survey results (reference example) on page 9 are the results of the first year. This radar chart shows the five items I mentioned earlier. The blue line is the current status, the orange line is the twenty twenty-five target, and the gray line is the future target. The values are large because they are from the current status to the twenty twenty-five and the final target, but the radar chart showed slightly low scores in two areas, development traction and human resource development. I feel that further support is necessary in this area. In the question on the introduction of security technology, the answer is steady and steady progress, and it can be seen that efforts to introduce some kind of technology have begun.

This graph shows the total number of obstacles and effects for each individual introduction in the form of large, medium, and small. It is a double Y axis, and the left is the cumulative number of answers, and there are some with more than 100 answers. On the other hand, the green line graph shows the score and the average on the 5-point scale, and the right numerical value is referred to. The big figure, for example, 4.1, is the initial investment and operation cost for introduction. How much money will it cost is an obstacle, and the number of answers saying that it will have a very large impact is very large. On the other hand, for example, internal rules and patents have relatively little impact, and the overall evaluation and numerical value are relatively low.

In general, I feel that the cost aspect is very large at 4.1. Many companies answered that they are also concerned about the lack of research and development expenses and manpower such as engineers and development power.

Page 10 also shows the changes in the two years of fiscal 2021 and fiscal 2022. The dark blue is the first year, the green is the next year, and the others are the targets and references. Even here, the scores of 5 and 4 were relatively slow, and overall, I recognize that the awareness of the initiative of smart safety has increased a little. There are some strengths and weaknesses in each electrical equipment, but I can see that some direction is indicated and efforts are made actively in general. In places where progress is remarkable, such as the development of project leaders and the transmission of examples of initiatives, I can see a tendency that full-scale smart safety promotion efforts are being actively implemented now.

The rating of individual technology introduction is quite random, and there are high and low points. For example, there is a little progress in the introduction of digitalization and drones. On the other hand, data utilization is still sluggish as a low point because it takes time to analyze and accumulate even if it is introduced.

Although understanding of smart security for electrical equipment is advancing, I believe that even operators who have yet to make a response because their security technology is unknown have somehow moved forward toward twenty twenty-five.

As a reference example on page 11, the recognition of the Promotion Committee has steadily increased from fiscal 2021 to fiscal 2022, and I think that our activities are also recognized a little.
As for what kind of activities are expected, about 60% of them are proposals for reviewing the rules of regulation and promotion activities in the industry, and 40% are the publication of technology catalogs and further improvement of name recognition, which are currently being carried out.

As a summary of the findings from the survey on page 12, it can be seen that there is a lack of new technical information on the ground and that people are hesitating about how to proceed. There is also a lack of manpower even if they want to introduce new technologies, a lack of leaders and people familiar with IoT, and an excessive fear of risk when introducing new technologies. As has been discussed in this committee, new technologies and know-how are competitive areas, and there is also a relationship of confidential information that many business operators who are ahead of others do not want to disclose information.

In addition to the Electricity Utilities Industry Law, I believe that the regulation and procedures of various ministries and agencies are obstacles. The reason why we are hesitant about the timing of introduction technology is that even if we introduce it now, it will soon become obsolete, and we do not have a prospect of when to introduce it. We are hesitant to introduce it because we do not feel any incentives to see what kind of benefits it will have. We want to avoid working as a first mover, like if I were second, I would try. As I said at the beginning, I would like to ask whether the issue of money is also related to management decisions.

As a future image of smart electrical security for promoting the introduction on page 13, we would like to introduce various latest technologies, but the roles of the government include regulation and relaxation of procedures. In the security field, security regulation are specified and delivered to the jurisdiction, but I feel that it would be appreciated if the ministries and agencies could simplify the procedures and shorten the time to relax regulation. Also, the private sector has not been able to secure human resources, so I feel that it is urgent to increase the number of project leaders and IoT and information engineers, and to develop human resources. I think it is possible to appoint external human resources.

Information disclosure is necessary in this context, and we will create a mechanism for sharing information in various places. We believe that it is necessary to present incentives so that people can clearly feel that they have disclosed information, and to build a mechanism for standardization and disclosure in order to promote the introduction of information disclosure.

As shown on page 14, activities to promote understanding are important. First of all, there is a Issue where the content is not understood and there are too many specialized descriptions. The reason why we are struggling to respond to conflicting content is that, for example, in terms of acceleration, there are IoT and AI utilization, but in terms of braking, there are risks. Considering this, I think that it is very important to provide on-site support such as clearly communicating the utility and operation risks, and how to disseminate information at the on-site level carefully so as not to leave the on-site. It is written in summary that it is important to share information on the introduction image, future image, and recognition of the current situation, but I think that efficiency should be conducted on the premise that there are benefits for both the public and private sectors.

Finally, as shown on page 15, various voices have been raised as a circle of technical assistance. It is necessary to create and discover new technologies, and it is necessary to provide field environments that can be tested and evaluated and to match development users. In order to accumulate data, it is necessary to suck up data from the field, but if it becomes a state of being sold out, there is a problem that feedback is not provided and there is no mutual cooperation unless the data is handed over from the point of whether it is the user or the development user who has the data. I think a circle of technical assistance is also necessary in such a case. It is written that network construction, mutual support for cyber measures, and the utilization of external human resources, but I think a circle of technical assistance is also necessary in which the development period and cost are suppressed by actively promoting and utilizing human resources in the information field.

As a reference material, we have attached a catalog of smart security technologies, and seven items have been registered. As a security technology model, this paper shows examples of basic element technologies.

That's all for my report.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, , thank you for your explanation. Next, I would like to move on to the Q & A session. I have heard that a person in charge of the Smart Security Division of the National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (NITE) is also participating today. Mr. Nakagaki has told me that you may make a statement in response. Please understand.

Then, do you have any questions or opinions about the presentation earlier? If you would like to speak, we will designate you after you raise your hand using the raise your hand function. Thank you very much. Do you have any questions? You explained it carefully, so you may not have many questions. I will ask you questions.

In terms of money, business, and effectiveness, it is difficult to introduce the system easily, but is it a situation in which measures are gradually being taken?

Nakagaki Member: Yes. I can see that the situation is like that. There are some difficult points to consider, but in the end, I think it is necessary to promote understanding that it is not essential to introduce AI, which is currently popular, by having people understand that it is a technology that supports the practical work of those who are engaged in the practical work of security.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, In particular, is there a recognition that the field is not in much trouble, and are there not a few parts where the field feels that there are more demands than necessary?

Nakagaki Member: No, I know that there are already not enough people on the ground, and I know that the number of people involved in security will decrease steadily in the future, so I feel rushed to do something, but when I am asked to use AI, I think that it does not proceed in a way that starts with studying it.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, Then, as you said, there will be success stories, and you have not yet been able to bring them into a cycle in which you can advance in a second place but with less risk?

Nakagaki Member: , and it has been possible to save labor to this extent, and it has been possible to reduce expenses to this extent. Originally, it was an annual inspection, and it had to be inspected after a complete power outage, but it can be constantly monitored in this digitalization, and it can be monitored for three years, for example, without a power outage. These big advantages are being made known in this catalog. If these things are made known, I think there will be a few more business operators who will do the same thing.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, After all, it is about how to create a cycle in which people at the site see it, including the enhancement of the catalog and incentives, and finally management approves it.

Nakagaki Member: Hai.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, Committee? May I have your attention?

Thank you very much for your valuable experience. It was 2021, so it was already two years ago, and although it was a struggle, I think it was an introduction that these activities have been steadily carried out.

Nakagaki Member: .

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, Since there seem to be no particular questions from you, I will move on to the next agenda. For the next agenda, I would like to ask the secretariat to explain the progress of technology-based regulatory reform and how to proceed for the time being.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh Ezaki. Now, I would like to explain the secretariat materials. The first two pages are an overview of this committee, so I will skip them.

Page 4 is a discussion point that I would like you to discuss at the committee this time, and it is full partly because I have a little time this time. First, I would like to report on the status of coordination to carry out the Technology validation project in cooperation with each ministry. Second, I would like to explain our policies, including a review of the vertical and horizontal axes of Technology Map. Third, I would like to explain the second round of advance public offering after adding some additional items to the items listed in the catalog. Fourth, I would like to explain how to organize information that reinforces the surrounding area, such as portal sites and technical commentary articles. Fifth, I would like to make a proposal on how to create a community and interact with stakeholders on a regular basis in the form of a consortium. I would like to talk about these in order.

From the next page, it is the progress of the Technology validation Project.

Page 6 is a list of Technology validation Projects (Types). At the previous Committee meeting, the authorities said that Technology regulation is necessary before reviewing validation. To summarize, I reported that at present there are 14 types of Technology provision Projects. Going forward, on the far right side of the table, the number of provision that have been coordinated with the ministries and agencies concerned to conduct Technology validation together has increased considerably, to 469, which is as close as possible to 500. I would like to report on this first. 1,043 validation

On page 7, for the 14 types, I would like to actually conduct technical validation in order and connect them to the catalog. Dialogue and consultation with the ministries and agencies responsible for the regulation are advancing ahead of time, and work is progressing to establish specifications on how to implement technical validation. Currently, specifications are being built in for the five types, specifically, types 3, 6, 8, 13, and 14, which are surrounded by red squares. Although some of them may fall out, we would like to start the first public offering by the first half of June, around next week, for the types for which consultations have been completed at an early stage.

On page 8, if you look more closely at the types of public offering plans, law and provision, which are carpooled together, are quite widely different. On the far right, the ministries and agencies responsible for each provision are listed, but I recognize that the fact that various public office are carpooled together for technology validation across ministries and agencies means that the knowledge within the government will be doubled. In addition, although I have not yet added anything to this, I have heard from local government that there are needs for technology validation in a similar type, and we are currently making final adjustments to see if there is a possibility that we can work with local government.

From page 9 on, I have detailed descriptions of these five types to give you a better image of each. Type 3 is to use drones and point cloud data to remotely check the status of structures, and drones and image analysis by AI are expected to be used as technologies.

Type 6 is a area group that requires visitors to enter a specific regulation outdoors to investigate the condition of natural objects. Since there are similar needs in various area, including Antarctica, we would like to conduct validation to determine how far we can remotely confirm the situation using drones and satellite images and AI.

Type 8 on the upper row of page 10 is that regarding regulation, where on-site inspections are conducted and questions are asked, I would like to make a validation to what extent it can be conducted remotely using an online conference system and the like. The number of provision currently shared is 11, but I believe that validation has wide expansion potential even in places where it is not shared.

The lower row is Type 13. There are regulation that require prior permission for viewing and monitoring to prevent unauthorized viewing and text falsification, but I would like to make a validation on whether it is possible to remotely confirm identity while preventing unauthorized access.

Type 14 at the end of page 11 is the online implementation of legal training. We will conduct a preliminary public offering of technology, and there is still some Issue about how far we can take measures, including the prevention of spoofs, by using a learning management system, but I would like to firmly conduct validation.

The above is the implementation policies of the Technology validation project.

Moving on to the second item on the agenda, this is an update on Technology Map.

Page 13 is the familiar Technology Map that I originally showed you. If you structure it a little, it will be the next page. As a way of organizing continuous updates on the vertical and horizontal axes, I would like to create a map that lists what the purpose of regulation is, what needs to be done to achieve it, and what the means to realize it are.

Page 15 is the direction of the update of the vertical axis of Technology Map. The left side is the conventional plan, so the first seven items, the typical regulations on paper and in-person processes picked up by the Digital Rincho, are placed vertically, so we started to organize them, so it is like this. At present, in order to reorganize them into 14 types in view of the technology validation, we are working to replace them with a vertical axis with one more level of abstraction.

In addition, on page 16, which is next to that, I would appreciate if you could give me comments and advice because this is still under trial and error, but I am ashamed to give you an idea of the arrangement that the Secretariat is considering with MRI at this point. For example, the first is a method of examining the vertical axis by taking the approach of whether it is possible to make it into a large block and structure to some extent while faithfully referring to the part that says what to do in the text. However, with this, the individual means themselves are fixed, and there is a problem that it is limited to the examination of low-dimensional alternatives such as whether it can be done digitally. In that sense, as shown on the right, I feel that I am gradually lost in the forest, but I have started to consider what should be done with analog regulation information, to what extent can be substituted with digital information, and whether it can be arranged in a way that can be upper-compatible, by adding interpretation and estimation of what kind of information processing and what kind of judgment is required, which is not necessarily specified in the text. I would like to ask someone with wisdom to tell me about this.

Page 17 is an update to the horizontal axis. Originally, the horizontal axis was for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Digital Strategy, and the functions were decomposed so that the more to the right, the more advanced the technology utilization, and the higher the digital completion. However, in reality, it is not necessarily related to the sophistication of technology or the maturity of technology, and it was decided to put on the far right those that are slightly unclear where to position, such as extending or eliminating the inspection cycle of the periodic inspection by real-time monitoring.

Once these are structured, we will challenge to reorganize the functions in the form of what data is input in the first place, how it is processed, how it is finally output and used, and how it is transferred to action along the data flow of the IPO model, and we will update the map with a colorful horizontal axis at the bottom.

On page 18, when the updates on the vertical axis and the updates on the horizontal axis are combined, it is almost impossible to see the map in small letters on paper. On the portal site, of course, only the necessary parts can be extracted and enlarged for viewing, but on the other hand, I think it will be Issue in the future to make it a map that is readable and easy to read. It is still at the image stage, but I would like to organize it in this way.

On page 19, there is not necessarily a one to-one correspondence between individual technologies and the solutions and services provided by each company. Therefore, if we place commercially available services on the far right side, I think it would be good to make an organic display that each service is established by combining the elemental technologies marked with a circle on the green line.

On page 20, in presenting the manual and rules for how to use Technology Map, the current idea is to create a manual and explanation for each stakeholder and carefully present them.

On page 21, as an effort incidental to Technology Map, I would like to provide information as needed together with Technology Map on documents that may be referred to among the existing guidelines already issued globally by industry groups and others.

From page 22 is the third item, the technical catalog.

As for page 23, in October last year, we held a preliminary public offering of products and services under the theme of digitalization for training and testing, and received many proposals. In addition to the proposed items to be included in the catalog at the time of the public offering, we will add the points pointed out by the committee and others later, and the list of items to be included in the technical catalog at this point will continue from here. We would like to reduce the number of items that are essential and that we would like you to write down as much as possible in order to expand the scope of information, and we would like to include information that can be provided flexibly at will.

One thing that the Secretariat is struggling with is whether to make the information for business operator registration in the public procurement optional or mandatory. If you have registered as a business operator, it is useful because the authorities can immediately enter the procurement process without confirming your qualifications one by one. On the other hand, for those who are advancing into the government procurement market for the first time, such as start-ups, we would like to make it optional so that the lack of registration does not become a barrier to entry. Since the bidding qualifications are being updated rapidly, we may have to ask business operators to update them manually for the time being, but since the information is originally owned by the government, we hope to aim for a system that will be firmly connected and support the update in the future.

It is page 25. One major issue I think is how to handle products and services before the start of service. At the stage of preliminary public offering, we unfortunately decided not to include in the catalog those that were provided as not yet released. Since we could not confirm the existence of the products and services, we decided to drop them by fact check. On the other hand, information on products and services that are highly likely to come out in the future is considered to be of high information value because it is an area with high technological potential in the future.

The first point of contention is that we should also ask organizations with technology to provide information on products and services before sales and provision in the form of Technology Readiness Level (TRL). However, if we suddenly list them in the catalog, we will not be able to make a procurement even if we try to make a procurement, so the quality of the information will deteriorate. Therefore, instead of listing them in the catalog, we would like to list them in the form of technology areas that will appear in Technology Map in the future, and keep individual product information as supporting data. I would like to ask for your opinions on this later.

Page 26 is the content of the second round of advance public offering. Following the first round of training and examination digital completion, we are preparing to conduct a second round of public offering of technologies related to the regulations for on-site inspection and public inspection, which are relatively simple in terms of business processes and are considered to be relatively easy to verbalize and clarify the sense of Issue held by the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation. We understand that the common authorities are concerned about the prevention of spoofs, the prevention of snooping, the prevention of copying, and the prevention of falsification after disassembling the business process. We will start public offering by the end of June with a focus on such questions, and if possible, we will close the public offering in August before scrutinizing and announcing the content.

As a reference from the next page, this is an introduction to the question items for creating a catalog for on-site inspection and public inspection according to the catalog items I mentioned earlier.

From the 34th Purge is the fourth item, how to proceed with the portal site and technical explanation articles. On page 35, when we have been publishing catalogs and maps on the Internet as needed, we have been discussing what kind of site it should be and what kind of information should be available so that many people can access it. As written on the left side, I think we have received various ideas.

First of all, we need to start small this fiscal year and not be greedy, otherwise we won't be able to get around to it. At the very least, we will build a solid portal site and publish reliable articles with technical backing that technology will change the future. In addition, we will share with other authorities and stakeholders the information on the technology validation that has been tried and failed by each ministry and agency, that has been missed, and that the Issue has been cleared. We will put top priority on this.

From page 36, I would like to describe the image of the portal site. We would like to build the portal site by creating a customer journey map and creating a transition diagram of the screen based on the assumption of the use cases in which each of the assumed users will try to access the portal site.

Page 38 is a technical explanation article. First of all, I would like to focus on writing based on reliable information about the implementation of such a validation and the expectation of such a change with such technology. With the help of writers, I would like to make sure to create articles that can be read and that can be read.

At this time, for example, if it is an organization with technology, I think it is probably a big motivation to grasp in which area regulation will be unlocked and where it will become a frontier. Based on what each stakeholder on the left wants to know and takes the trouble to look at this map, I would like to provide the article properly. I would like to consult with you again when this is a little completed.

On page 39, I am writing about the terms of use. Of course, we disclose Technology Map and technology catalogs because we want to ensure the accuracy and quality of the information as much as possible, but since they cannot be perfect, we should control the expectations of what kind of responsibility each person will use. There are several risks assumed at the stage where information is posted, such as the posting of wrong and inappropriate information, the state of intellectual property infringement, and the posting of information on information providers with undesirable attributes. We will update as needed what risks there are at the stage where information is used, what risks there are at the stage where technology is actually used at the site by referring to it, and what risks should be assumed.

We would like to thoroughly describe in the terms of use what each stakeholder should be aware of and what roles and responsibilities should be assumed for the use of each main content to be provided.

It is page 41. We have started to organize the items of the Covenant with the participation of lawyers. This is an image, but I would like to create it in this way.

Finally, I would like to move on to the fifth item, the consortium.

It is page 43. In response to the information we officially provide in Technology Map and the technology catalog, when we have a need for such information, we will invite people from time to time, but it is information collection that we collect for our own convenience. Since the development of technology and the need to use technology occur on the side of various stakeholders as needed, we would like to have a route or place where such information can be always input to us or where communication can be made as needed. The purpose of the establishment of the consortium is to have a route or place where such information can be always input to us or where communication can be made as needed. We would like to have a small community that is useful for each stakeholder and grow it large, while naturally inviting the organizations that have already said they will work together.

On page 44, there are roughly three roles we expect this consortium to play.

First of all, we would like you to provide information on the technology, and we would like to create a mechanism to continuously share this information.

Another is that when reviewing regulations on paper and in-person processes, even the ministries and agencies in charge of regulation are probably considering what kind of players are in what kind of places as related parties, even though only a limited number of stakeholders around you can be seen. As we found by categorizing Technology validation this time, there are surely people who are actually conducting similar Technology validation in completely different fields and have information on technology, so I would like to create an environment in which people can easily talk to each other and talk to each other by clarifying where such people are and mildly networking them. By receiving feedback from various stakeholders as needed, including that this is strange, I would like to ensure synergy with measures for reviewing regulations on paper and in-person processes. I hope that organizations that are enthusiastic about participating as observers every time in this committee will play a central role.

The third is a learning opportunity for the people concerned, and if it is useful, I would like the Secretariat to plan briefing sessions and study sessions as needed, and I would also welcome any plans brought in.

In summary, as shown on page 45, each stakeholder on the horizontal axis and the Administration Office, including us, will prepare an event or mechanism for each time period on the vertical axis. At that time, we have compiled a list of requests for cooperation and participation from this perspective. I would like you to view only those that apply to you vertically, but in the future, first of all, when we start the operation of the consortium, we would be grateful if you could call on people around you to participate or if you could participate. As the Office, we will hold a general meeting, hold a briefing session on maps and catalogs, including what I am explaining here, and hold a briefing session as Pitch Con testing and Technology validation progress, and if there are good examples, share them at a study session, a workshop, a matching event, and a symposium. We hope that we can plan them as needed to meet your needs to the extent possible.

That's all the report from the office.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . With regard to the five points, you have been talking about a substantial increase since before I spoke, but I believe that you have understood that the Secretariat has spent a considerable amount of time and is conducting quite specific discussions toward implementation regarding what we received from you last fiscal year. I would like to hear your opinions on the policies and other matters that the Secretariat is working on, which you just explained. I would like to hear your opinions. As for the block of five paragraphs, which is easier to do, to listen without distinguishing, or to work in order?

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh If it's not difficult for you to talk, you can talk anywhere at random.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, Then, instead of taking turns, you will talk about specific topics in a flat manner, and if we look at the overall situation a little more, I think there will be questions about what is missing or what will be done.

I have received a chat from a member, but I am not in a situation where I can speak. Then, Member Shimada has raised his hand, so please.

Mr. Shimada: When I was making a design myself, I also didn't know why it was like this if I took over the design of my senior in the past. What was useful at that time was the minutes of the past. I stayed in the archive and read the history of what led to such a thing for a long time, and it came down from heaven that this was established by such a solicitation. I have an experience that if I disassemble it, I can make a bold change. Therefore, it may be revolutionary if you challenge not only the text, but also the legend or examples of past failures to be disentangled and reconstructed into a map of the solicitation. I think it is difficult. . When I explained last time, the point was that there are many items that can be advanced by revising or actually implementing the validation, such as the law, without the need for technology or such a digitalization. Is it that it is progressing steadily separately from this?

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh . I have just explained the second round of the advance public offering, but we would naturally like to set up a route to include it in the catalog without going through the technical validation. Regarding the tests and lectures for which we made the advance public offering in the first round, we will add the items to be listed in the catalog after that, which will be a double hassle for business operators, but after adding the information, we would like to have the catalogs released for the first and second areas soon.

Mr. Shimada: When I was making a design myself, I also didn't know why it was like this if I took over the design of my senior in the past. What was useful at that time was the minutes of the past. I stayed in the archive and read the history of what led to such a thing for a long time, and it came down from heaven that this was established by such a solicitation. I have an experience that if I disassemble it, I can make a bold change. Therefore, it may be revolutionary if you challenge not only the text, but also the legend or examples of past failures to be disentangled and reconstructed into a map of the solicitation. I think it is difficult. I see. It will get harder if you are doing difficult problems, so I think it is better to get the effect early after all. I think it would be better to put that aspect a little more front and explain it carefully, so that there will be even a little small success.
As for the next issue of Technology Map, since it is a technology, I think it will probably change constantly. New technology will come out one after another, so if you create a Technology Map and are happy that it has finally been completed, there is a possibility that it will already be an old newspaper.

The most important thing is that in system engineering, we call it RFLP, which is an acronym of Requirement, Function, Logical, and PhysicalImplementation. The important things here are R and F. If it is possible to organize them, it will be done in a blink of an eye as a solution provider.

I think you said that some law are not so clearly written or are too clearly written. Even in the case of an airplane design, there are procedures for design, but procedures are actually leftovers, and when they are standardized or regulated, it is often impossible to understand why the regulations were established. Therefore, law is also made for various reasons, but I think that it is probably impossible for a person who sees it for the first time or a person who must observe law to understand the spirit of law by reading it.

If I wrote this law because I wanted to achieve this as a requirement, I would say that visual inspection should be done as a function for that. If this relationship can be bridged, since there are many technologies in the world now, perhaps when we implement this logically or physically next time, we can say that this technology and that technology are exactly the same. Or because it is a requirement like this, we do not need to look at it separately. There will be a means that can achieve the same thing in other ways.

It seems that many MRIs have come this time, so I thought that if you mobilize such people and perform RFLP analysis, the law itself may evolve greatly. This method is universal, and a tool called SysML (SystemsModelingLanguage), which was development in aerospace, may be used. There is no doubt that it is a hard work, but I think it is probably the best way to obtain results. Then, when a new technology comes out, it will be easier to replace it with a completely different technology to achieve the same purpose.

I'm sorry to say so much, but one last thing. Regarding the user experience of the catalog, I think the biggest hurdle for the introduction that Mr. Nakagaki, a professor at Waseda University, mentioned earlier is that I don't know how much money it will cost or what I can do. I think it is best for people who see the catalog to be able to easily understand how much money it will cost and what solutions are available for the regulation that they want to do or need to clear, and that is usually the hurdle. I think it is important to make efforts so that I can see that I can use the testing in this way, because I will break my heart if I try to prove that the regulation is okay with this by myself. That is all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . I would like the Secretariat to respond to this. First of all, Mr. Someya has to leave at 5:15 due to the time. Could you please give us your comments?

Someya Member: Thank you, . In addition, I would like to express my respect to you for reflecting on the discussions so far and summarizing it so carefully. In particular, a catalog will be created in the future, and a consortium will be formed. I believe that steady progress can be seen.

On the other hand, as stated in the opening slide, as the goal of the Committee, while you are making various efforts, such as the cross-sectional utilization of similar regulation and the promotion of procurement by private sector, I believe it is necessary to monitor in some way whether the activities and various catalogues conducted here will have an effect on such matters in the future. Please tell us how you will proceed. Thank you.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, , could the Secretariat please ask Mr. Someya and Mr. Shimada to respond?

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh . I heard that Mr. Someya is scheduled to leave, so I will answer first.

I recognize that monitoring is a matter for future consideration. First of all, we will conduct validation to determine whether this technology can be substituted. This will actually motivate the field, and the technology will be introduced. As a result, the efficiency of the field will be improved, and the regulation authorities will further rationalize the regulation based on this. Our original aim is to make this cycle. I would like to discuss the matter of where to conduct fixed-point observation and follow up separately after considering the plan. I believe this is an important point.

Also, I would like to thank Mr. Shimada for proposing various logical frameworks for science in the untold world of regulation. I am ashamed to say that I do not know anything about RFLP analysis, but I would like to try it.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, , may I have your attention, please? Is there anything I can do for you?

Someya Member: Thank you, . I would like to make one additional statement.

I think monitoring the final effect is the real goal, but I think it is good to start monitoring even before the validation of the final effect. Otherwise, we could all see this huge amount of things on the way and talk in detail about where to go. I would appreciate it if the secretariat could consider how to do monitoring on the way.

That's all from me. Thank you.
Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, It is the same as the story that the CSTI (Council for Science, Technology and Innovation) is also struggling. They are also MRIs, so such know-how may be accumulated.

Someya Member: Thank you, : Thank you very much.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, Please continue your response to Mr. Shimada from the Secretariat.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh to the framework in which we are just now trying to update the vertical axis of Okinawa by trial and error, and I would like to do a thought experiment to

What we do in visual inspection is like suprematism, but it is a means, what we originally wanted (Requirement), and what functions are necessary for that (Function). We are talking about this one by one with the people of the ministries and agencies in charge of each regulation in digital consultation, so that we can solve the legal purpose and the protection and legal benefits. If we can do this as a type in the form of RFLP analysis of the regulation method, there is a possibility that functional substitution in a broad sense or DX of regulation will occur. I would like to bring it to the point where it can be said that the law itself has evolved. I would like to try this immediately in the examination of the vertical axis. That is all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . As Mr. Shimada said at the beginning, even if there are no technical details at least, there are cases where the concept can be changed simply by changing the law. That is actually the essential point of consideration. In terms of how to do that, Mr. Shimada said on page 14 that we should review the purpose once again in "Asis" and "Tobe." It is a very difficult issue that the Secretariat is struggling with, how to organize the parts that do not care about the purpose if they are not in the procedure, so that we can review the purpose once again, rather than having the means first.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh Yes. If you are too obsessed with the keywords that appear in the text, you cannot go to the upper layer. However, I believe that we need to clearly verbalize what kind of thought process there was before falling into the means, and I think it would be good to create a map that can reflect such things.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh . In the case of law, there are many consultants and explanatory documents, but in fact, information that is not listed there and how it has been explained to the Legislative Bureau is also originally very valuable information, so I would like to trace it to the extent possible in cooperation with the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, , which is a very large amount, and although the Secretariat would like to do so, there is also a problem with Human Resource.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh Intellectually, it is a really interesting work. If I had any time, I would like to do it. I think it is the essence, so I will do my best to the extent possible.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . Although it is fine to ask about other matters, what questions and opinions do you have from the members?

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, Ogawa has just raised his hand.

Member: . In addition, I would like to thank you for such a wonderful summary.

One point is that we should identify and respond to unique risks when conducting digitalization from analog. For example, digitalization and paperless systems create new risks, and for example, additional validation procedures are required for accounting audits. Naturally, digitalization is easier to copy and digitally process than paper. For digitalization, technology to control such falsification is also extremely important, and access control, as well as log retention, is extremely important. There are many topics on access control, including privileged ID, so-called ITGC (InformationTechnologyGeneralControl), but I think that digitalization naturally needs to consider these peripheral areas. If you have already considered these points, please tell us.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, , can you give us an answer? It is very abstract and difficult to answer.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh . I am sorry if you are not exactly what I thought, but first of all, in the second round of the advance public offering, I would like to make a public offering for digital completion for on-site inspection and public inspection. Therefore, issues related to access control, such as prevention of spoofs and prevention of snooping, are mentioned as common concerns of the authorities. Access control is performed by installing a ledger on the spot to manage those who enter, whereas how can digital be secured? In the second round of the advance public offering this time, how to register and manage application information is a question item that will be asked in considerable detail, but if there is anything that I should ask about, I would like to know about it. If you could let me know by the end of this week, I would be grateful if I could make it in time. Thank you.

Member: Thank you very much. I understand.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, , if there are any important points, I would like you to tell them to the Secretariat.

Member: I am Noboru, a member of (chat speech). Regarding Technology Map, etc., it is difficult to speak with a microphone because of the noise around us, so I will write my opinion in characters instead.

First, I agree with the idea of starting the Technology Map Technology Catalog website with a slow start.

Part 2. P. 39: "Terms and Conditions for Use of the Technology Map and Technology Catalog" In 5 "Responsibilities for Use", there is a provision that "the information publisher" is responsible for "security, reliability, accuracy, completeness, effectiveness, absence of security defects, errors and bugs, and infringement of rights." I thought it was unclear who the "responsibility" was to. (1) If the "information publisher" is responsible for "other viewers," the legal relationship between the other viewers and the information publisher occurs between those two parties each time, so I thought it had no meaning to be prescribed in these Terms. (2) On the other hand, if the "information publisher" is responsible for the "government" (website operator), I think "responsible for security, reliability, accuracy, completeness, effectiveness, absence of security defects, errors and bugs, and infringement of rights" is a considerably excessive liability provision from the viewpoint of the principle of reward. I thought that if article contributors (contributors) do not receive compensation but are forced to take such excessive responsibility, no one will contribute. I think it is unbalanced that the government receives expenses (taxes) for operating the website but imposes all responsibility on contributors (free contributors).

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, chat side, I think the members are worried that if the TermsConditions are too strict, people will not write or post articles.

In addition, Mr. Kawabata said that it is good to have an early start and small start. I have an opinion on a system to keep accurate records of past history, which is the same as what I said earlier. What do you think?

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh . I have been receiving suggestions from the members and even writing articles about actual samples. I am not very confident about how many bottles of that quality can be produced, but I would like to get closer to that.

As I explained in the article on 4., first of all, I would like to do small start without being greedy. To be specific, I would like to postpone the inclusion of UGC (UserGenerativeContent) for a while. First, we will write and provide articles as much as we can quality control. After that, we will accept more and more contributors. I propose that we work on this in two stages. From that perspective, we will set strict terms and conditions at first, but when we make it lively in the second stage, we will gradually establish a style of contribution that will motivate people to contribute and that will not be overly strict.

Thank you very much for the proposal from Mr. Kawabata. It is very wasteful that old things will disappear if we update them, and I think it is valuable data that it was like this at that time. I would like to make efforts to keep such a history, but I will let you know if it is possible in terms of cost and technology after making a good validation.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . I would like to express my opinion with a hat that is not a chairman. In this article, I feel that it is one way to ask the official in charge to write that it was created with this kind of mind when the law was created. The official in charge is creating the law while considering what was written in the text when the law was created and the background of why it was not written. When I heard your story, I thought that it is one way to write such a thing.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh Technology validation, so aside from whether or not we can publish 500 articles, I thought it would be interesting if you could tell us about representative law for each of the 14 types of Technology validation, and based on that, we made a validation like this. I think it would be interesting if the articles were a set of both humanities and sciences perspectives. I would appreciate it if the ministries and agencies in charge could cooperate. regulation

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, That's right. It will be a burden on the person in charge, but it will be a plus for the person himself if it remains as history properly, so I think it would be great if we could do it well.

Thank you very much. Are there any other opinions from the members? It may be a very difficult opinion. Mr. Suzuki, please.

SUZUKI Member: As mentioned earlier by Mr. Nakagaki, I think that fear of risk comes up when we are working on new things. I think it is necessary to start with low-risk things instead of digitalization at any cost. It is also necessary to determine how much risk there is when switching. It is also necessary to proceed according to the risk after properly evaluating it.

I have been working on various legal systems in drones through public and private sectors, but if a uniform system is created, it may be too strict for low-risk things and too lax for high-risk things. Of course, very important inspections must be performed properly. If it is a routine inspection, the digitalization will be easily progressed. Even if it is a single inspection, I think the risk will be different depending on what kind of inspection is performed in what phase, and the risk will be different depending on what kind of situation is used. I felt that it is not necessary to evaluate the risk properly and do everything at once in the environment and evaluation program.

Also, what is said to be the best performance is important. As you pointed out earlier, I felt that it is necessary to have a way of thinking that requires the principle of why you have to do it, and allows you to freely choose why you do it and how you do it.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh Suzuki. I have just reported that you are working hard to write the specifications for the Technology validation Project. Among them, what do you want to see in detail, at what level of granularity, and what do you want to see in order to understand the risks? We are writing this down after having a fairly detailed conversation with the authorities. Otherwise, we do not know what those who apply for the Technology validation Project will be able to do unless they have the capability to testing, so we are spending a lot of money on verbalization. I think that itself will be value-added, and in the course of that conversation, I think it would be good if we could discuss whether it is really necessary to do so, and whether we can leave this choice to the business operator.

SUZUKI Member: I think it is impossible to do this unless we work together with the field, so I think it is difficult, but please do so.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . After all, even for the same technology, the degree of risk management differs depending on the application area. Whether or not it can be firmly embedded in this is also important. If the required standard is low, there are places where it can be introduced quickly, and if the required standard is high, it may be difficult to devise how to write this within this frame, but it is an opinion that it is necessary.

There is a chat from Mr. Ogino. Would you like to speak?

Ogino Member: This content is only a request. It is just on page 28, but I thought that three lines about Trust would be unreliable. It is a technical catalog, so if you look at it, you can see in more detail that this point has been taken into consideration, and if it becomes a free description, I think many people may not know how much to write, so I would be grateful if you could devise such a matter. That is all.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh Ogino, can I consult with you about that in detail? I would appreciate if you could prepare some form such as an entry example and a checklist so that it will not become a free description, and I would appreciate if I could consult with you as soon as possible.

Ogino Member: Yes. Also, I think the cybersecurity Division of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry will probably be there today. The cybersecurity Division of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is currently considering the validation requirements for IoT devices, as well as the mechanism and requirements for validation. I think there are some contents that can be used as a reference in the input items at the time of public offering, while making use of knowledge from such places. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much,

Ogino Member: That's right. In particular, Europe and the United States, including Minister in charge of Administrative Reform Okada, are quite actively disclosing various guidelines and requirements, so I think that we can complement this by utilizing them a little.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, procurement side can use well will be written here.

Member of the Ogino Committee: That's right. That would be a great relief.
Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, , Mr. Suga is going to ask Mr. Ogino for his cooperation.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh Yes. I will extract this part and send it to you, so it would be very helpful if you could tell me specifically how to fix it like this.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . Would you like to talk to him?

OKADA Member: chat, in the technology area, I don't think it is necessary to strictly determine the users as you said. On the other hand, in local government, we don't know much about technology, so we need to have an explanation that will have an impact on such people. On the other hand, if the impact is too strong, there will be misunderstandings and people will think that they can do anything, and the risk issue mentioned earlier will be bad if it is interpreted broadly. So, rather than narrowing down the target users, we need to look at where to align them if they are to be seen widely.

In fact, for example, if engineers write it, it is easy to emphasize what is very specialized and what is different there, although it is not at the academic society level. On the contrary, there are places where everything that is unknown to the general public is called AI, and I feel that there are many people who call everything AI in statistics and mathematics. In that sense, I think that the world view of users around there is quite different from the world view of people who do technical development. I wrote in the first part that it is better to sort out what kind of person should write there in response to who really reads it.

Second, in terms of technology, as Mr. Shimada said, new technology will come out more and more, but we cannot buy new ones more and more, so the most important thing is how to maintain the technology. If we do not write follow-up on the maintenance, we may end up buying it, but we will have to do the rest ourselves, and we will be put off again. I myself think that it would be more like Japanese technology if we had a system that includes follow-up on the maintenance and maintenance of the technology, and that it can be used properly for 30 or 40 years.

In doing so, unlike foreign technology, the use of domestic technology will take care of the maintenance and management of the technology, so I think there will be benefits from the introduction of domestic technology here. In addition, in accordance with this, whether or not the manufacturer will be involved, in various ways, comprehensive logistical support will be provided for the development of operators and people who will maintain the technology, including operators, and I think that will create a sense of security for the users. Therefore, I thought that it would be good to have a little more follow-up and logistical support in that area, whether or not it is included now. That is all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, sustainability is related to security in a broad sense and to Mr. Ogino, who I mentioned earlier. In terms of maintenance, it is delicate to put too much emphasis on Japanese products, so I think it is very difficult for the Secretariat to strike a balance between these two aspects. But on the side of the introduction side, do you mean that the sustainability of the technology, the sustainability of the system, and the requestability will be extremely important?

OKADA Member: Yes, I think so.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh . When I explain this story to people in local government, they often say that they want us to be able to understand the service area. They tell me that it is quite difficult to make a procurement for a person who has a business office in local government, which is quite far away, because local companies are more careful in after-sales follow-up after that. So, I wanted to devise an item in the catalog so that they could write the service area. I would like to devise it.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . Member NAGAI, your hand is up. Are you all right?

Member , I have a few details. First of all, in Technology Map, I would like to ask if you are going to be in Trust's place. Recently, in the case of solutions and technologies using AI and machine learning, I think it is quite important to know what kind of dataset was trained and what kind of learning model was created. In this context, I thought it would be difficult to use some cases where the government is using an illegal dataset or using a dataset that is infringing on someone, and it is not an intellectual property infringement as a technology, but the part of creating a learning model, so I thought it would be better to include this in the item.

The second point is about data. It is written as Input → Process → Output in the form of IPO. I think that data cleansing is a point that is stuck in the digital introduction of many companies. After the data acquisition, it is relatively quickly entered into the learning stage, and the competition here is quite big. In the question of whether or not it can be entered into the model with improved accuracy, images can be won by deep learning and the brain, but in the case of data that is not so data or data that is quite risky if the accuracy is not high, there are many companies that are stuck in cleansing and annotation, so I thought that it would be better to have a roadmap for how to solve them.

In addition, we often create databases of cutting-edge technologies in our business and have them used by various people. However, there is always a problem that the classification system cannot be used every time a new technology is introduced, and dynamic maintenance is the most ideal. When it is quite difficult in terms of cost, one approach is to introduce dynamic labeling technology and reduce maintenance costs. Another is to give up dynamic clustering and labeling in the first place and use concept search and neighborhood search so that users can absorb them to some extent. I think there are two ways to do this. In terms of what kind of user interface we will actually create, we need to talk about customer journeys, so I think it is very important to have robust navigation. In consideration of maintenance costs, I thought it would be good to consider incorporating some means of dynamic clustering and labeling and some concept search. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, How to include this is something that I think is a matter of concern at the Secretariat, but regarding the pending issue, the customization issue, and when a new axis comes up, I thought it was very important to have it written in the article as literacy in general, but there is such a summary at the Society of Artificial Intelligence.

Member I'm sorry, but I don't know the summary of the Artificial Intelligence Society.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, For example, the Society for Artificial Intelligence has been launched. If it is the right thing to do, not Nagai, as a person who is a little neutral or respected in the field said, it will probably be written as an article, and the user side will be concerned about it. I think the point of what kind of questions will be asked to the industry will be shown, so how about writing an article on that matter? Is it difficult?

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh I would like to consider the output, including whether the article is good or not. Originally, what we have as a concept guided by the members is a map that is very dynamic and changes round and round every time a new axis or viewpoint is added. Therefore, of course, we thought that we would aim for dynamic clustering and labeling. Although we are limited in what we can do based on various resource constraints at this point, we would like to aim for that in the medium to long term, and I feel that it will be directly linked to how many times the site will be visited.

As you said about AI, in the draft, we were going to add a check box that says we are not anti-company because of compliance, but I thought we would create a check box to declare that we are responding to learning data in strict compliance with law. Regarding data cleansing, I heard that there is a data recovery function, but in addition to that, I thought we would ask if cleansing is also provided on a voluntary basis. I would like to discuss this method individually later.

Member : Thank you very much.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, I know you are busy, but I would really appreciate it if you could respond to the request from the Secretariat. Thank you very much.

Then, Member Nakagaki, your hand is up. Thank you.

Nakagaki Member: Again, I'm sorry. Regarding how to view the map on page 19, even if you draw a green line horizontally and linearly in the category on the vertical axis, there are some that are not necessarily so. For example, in the area of movement of people / things, of course, if you try to draw a line because there can be a camera, I think a line will be drawn diagonally in the middle category. Is the alignment on the vertical axis a design that does not necessarily have to be connected in a straight line with the Input, Process, and Output that are arranged horizontally?

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh As you said, the reason why the line is drawn horizontally is just that the slide will look messy if you don't do so. In fact, I don't think it is necessarily horizontal because I have an image that I want to tag this technology and this technology as elemental technologies on the system.

Nakagaki Member: I see. Regarding the technology catalog of technology, we also list the same items when we create the catalog. For example, in the opening presentation this time, when the cost and benefit are seen, the motivation for introduction is also raised. For example, I think it would be good to be able to show the cost-benefit ratio, which relatively shows the benefit, such as what kind of effect it has, and how much it costs.

For example, in our case, we spent this much time on analog inspections, but if we introduce this, it will decrease by this much. In that case, there is no need to calculate a raw figure because of personnel costs, but I thought it would be good to have information that indirectly shows that the time is reduced, or that if the replacement cycle is extended by changing the parts replaced by TBM to ConditionBasedMaintenance (CBM), and the life of the parts is extended by how many years, it can be predicted that the cost will be reduced by this much indirectly.

In the end, for example, I think that the pursuit of intrinsic safety is a major item in the Technology Map mentioned earlier. I think that there should be information that among the benefits, there are co-benefits or even additional benefits as a derivative. For example, it is not the minimum level of safety, but the level of safety itself has increased. Although the requirements required by the law have naturally been met, if there is a place where positive co-benefits such as that the level of safety has increased more than that, I thought that it would be more dense as information. That is all.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh Nakagaki. I recognize that even in this committee, it has become like technology supremacy, and it has been pointed out that it is meaningless to substitute technology regardless of how much it costs and how small the benefits are. However, if we try to include it in the catalog, it will inevitably be case-based, and if this case only results in such a cost-benefit ratio, I thought it would be more suitable for articles. It is fine to appeal in the free entry column, but I dropped it because I thought it would be a problem for those who were asked to include it as an item. If there is an idea that it can be written in a good way, or if it is set up like this, the minimum information we want to know can be obtained in a list form, I would be grateful if you could give me that idea.

Nakagaki Member: I see. I will think about it.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . If you can find a good description method, I would like to receive a proposal and adopt it.

Is there anything else? Is there anyone who hasn't spoken yet? Please feel free to give us your opinions and questions. Thank you, Mr. Kawahara.

Mr. Kawahara: I was looking at the technical map you showed me again, thinking, for example, how generative AI is now. I thought it was quite tasteful. In particular, generative AI is not only convenient but also has many concerns, so I think that various people are now thinking about various use cases and expressing various opinions. I think that a piece of material on the relationship between AI and copyright published by the Agency for Cultural Affairs just recently was very good. You can do it this far, and there is nothing to bind it. However, it may not be clear that if you do it this way, it will be caught in the conventional copyright law in this way, but in general, it is intuitively easy to understand, and in the sense of showing a path, I think that a very significant paper was issued.

Before that, I think it was very good that there was a summary of issues that was close to the advice of lawyers in private sector that when used by companies, it is OK to put in such data, but if you put in such things, there are risks, and things that are put in this way may be bad. There are more and more complicated things that you don't know what will happen, so I thought that one of the ways to enrich this map is to focus on topics from such places. That's all from me.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . Will the Secretariat respond in any way?

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh : When new technologies come out, I think it is very value-added to break them down into processes and show the application of existing laws. I hope that law's efforts to compromise can be done by posting a link after hearing the reputation that such technologies were good.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, This is something that the academic community and Kasumigaseki are very much concerned about, so if there are things that can be written before the final ones are released, it may be an important job to keep them in records. I think that will have a very positive impact on the creation of law, and I think that the story of how to manage data will be serious or critical.

Do you have any other opinions? Would it be all right? Since it was an explanation about many jobs, I think it was difficult to give your opinions because the members were from a very wide range of people. However, I would like to stop here today, and if I could not speak because it was sudden, I would like to ask for your opinions to the Secretariat at ASAP as soon as possible regarding matters related to the public offering. If it is a little bit longer term, the Secretariat is doing a difficult job, but I have heard that you would like to study your opinions very carefully, so I would like you to input your opinions to the Secretariat.

Then, since there are no further comments from you in the chat, I would like to conclude today's agenda. Finally, I would like to ask the secretariat to explain about the next committee and others.

Councilor Suga: Mr. Katoh , thank you for your comments on the chat. I will respond.

The Secretariat will contact you again about the next Committee meeting. Regarding today's proceedings, we would like to announce it on the Digital Agency website after confirming the draft minutes with everyone who attended from the Secretariat at a later date. In addition, if you do not have any particular objections to the materials of today's Committee meeting, we would like to disclose all of them on the Digital Agency website as a general rule.

Thank you very much for attending the committee meeting today.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . With that being said, I would like to close the meeting today. I would like to thank all of you who are really busy, and the Secretariat, which is advancing a very large amount of work, for your participation and your valuable opinions. Thank you very much for your work.