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

Overview

Date and Time: Monday, October 3, 2022 (2022) from 14:00 to 16:00
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. Holding of the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee (explanation from the Secretariat)
  2. Matters to be considered by the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee (explained by the Secretariat)
  3. Explanation from the Member
    - Technology Map, How the Technology Catalog Should Be
  4. Exchange of opinions
3. Adjournment

Materials

Minutes, etc.

Date and Time

Monday, October 3, 2022 (2022), from 14:00 to 16:00

Location

Held online

Members present

Chairman

Hiroshi Esaki (Digital Agency Chief Architect)

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)
Makoto Kato Hei (Associate Professor, Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering, The University
KAWAHARA Yoshihiro (Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo)
Yumi Kawabata
Kazuo Kyuma (President of the National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, National Research development Corporation)
Yutaka Saito (Executive Director of the Information-Technology Promotion Agency Digital Architecture and Design Center)
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)
Katsunori Nemoto (Counselor of the Japan Business Federation)
Daiyu Nobori (Director of the Cyber Technology Laboratory, Information-Technology Promotion Agency)
Yutaka Matsuo (Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo)

Overview

Secretariat (Suga) : The 1st "Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee" will be held on time.

My name is Hitoshi Digital Agency, and I will be your moderator.
Each member is participating online today.
Mr. Shimada, Mr. Suzuki, Mr. Someya and Mr. Nakagaki will be absent from the meeting. Mr. Endo, Mr. Kawahara and Mr. Nagai will be in attendance from the middle of the meeting.

Allow me now to outline the proceedings of today's meeting of the Committee.

First of all, the Secretariat will explain the guidelines for holding the committee and introduce the Chairman. After that, the Chairman will take over the proceedings, and the Secretariat will explain the matters to be considered by the committee and how to proceed, and then the members will explain "Technology Map, the ideal way of the technology catalog" based on the materials. I would like to take time for the members to speak freely at the end.

First of all, the Secretariat will explain the establishment of the Committee in accordance with Materials 1 to 3.

The materials are the same as those I sent you in advance, but first of all, it is about the guidelines for the establishment of the working group.

Under the Digital Ad Hoc Working Group, the Technology-based regulation Promotion Committee will be held to scrutinize digital technologies that can be used for cross-sectional reviews and to examine the applicability of digital technologies that have been confirmed to be safe and effective to other regulatory reform. I would like to report that the name of the committee has been officially changed to "Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee."

In addition, we would like to ask Mr. Hiroshi Esaki, who is also the Chief Architect of Digital Agency, to be the chairman, and the members have been decided this time under the chairman's nomination.

Material 2 shows the list of members. Thank you very much for your participation.

In addition, regarding Document 3, the Operation Guidelines provide for the disclosure of documents.
First of all, we would like to publish the materials distributed by the Committee in principle, and also publish the minutes of the meeting after everyone has checked them in advance.

On the other hand, depending on the content of the discussion, we would like to be able to keep some or all of the materials and minutes undisclosed upon the decision of the Committee. The content and reasons for the non-disclosure include cases where it is deemed that there is a risk of unduly impairing the frank exchange of opinions and the neutrality of decision-making, cases where it is deemed that there is a risk of unduly causing confusion among the people, and cases where it is deemed that there are reasonable grounds for the non-disclosure, such as the risk of significantly hindering neutral deliberations.

We would like the chairman to decide the other rules.

Then, as I explained earlier, I would like to ask Mr. Hiroshi Esaki, Chief Architect of Digital Agency, to chair this committee.

Mr. Ezaki, may I have a word with you?

Ezaki Chairman : I'm Ezaki of the University of Tokyo.
I will serve as the chair of this very important committee, so I would like to ask for your cooperation.

I think it is a major mission to review digitalization from a technical perspective in order to fully promote regulation. In addition, the head of the Nikkei newspaper today said that cyber attacks are extremely important and that the situation is severe. In a sense, I think that the fact that the committee is discussing today symbolizes that the committee will promote security, which should be conducted after having solid cyber digitalization measures. Therefore, I would like to make the committee fruitful with your various insights, ideas, and experience. I would appreciate your cooperation.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you very much.
Then, I would like to ask Dr. Ezaki about the further progress. Thank you very much.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.
Let's move on to the next step. Thank you.
We will enter into proceedings.

As for the self-introduction of each member, we have arranged a meeting in advance, so we would like to omit it.

Next, please explain the matters to be considered by the Committee from the Secretariat.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you very much.
We will share the materials on the screen again.

Turning to page 1, what I would like you to discuss today is, first of all, the goals and the ideal form of the meeting, the matters to be considered at the meeting and how to proceed, the ideal form of Technology Map and the Technology Catalog, and how to proceed with the Technology validation toward the review of regulation.

On the next page, can you go to slide two?

What I am assuming as the goal of this committee at this time is to summarize all the ideas you gave me at the last Brest. First of all, in order to accelerate the review of regulation and public service that do not conform to digital principles, we will co-create a knowledge base on examples of the use of advanced technologies, so-called best practices.

We will also promote the cross-sectional use of the same type of regulation and procurement and technology procurement by the public and private sectors.

We will also constantly review the modality of regulation itself through reevaluation of risks based on the assumption of technology use.

In addition, I believe that you have presented the elements that will lead to the creation and development of global markets by presenting further development Technology Targets while most effectively protecting the lives of the people from various risks. If there are any other missing items, I would like to hear your opinions later.

From page 3 onwards, the Secretariat will pick up the important opinions received from various places and list them as reminders, so I will explain a little from the perspective of recalling them.

It is necessary to create environments and incentives for Technology Map and catalogs to be updated or actually used, rather than finished after creation.

And this update should not be led by the government endlessly, but should be led by the private sector and spread as an ecosystem that is automatically generated by a democratic body.

In addition, it is desirable for the technology catalog to describe only the benefits if left alone, but for the users, it should be possible to understand what they cannot do. Can't we devise a way to make this public?

In addition, I believe that there may be feedback that the introduction of the technology will return to the original purpose of regulation and review the way it should be. For example, you pointed out that if digitalization makes it easier to conduct training, it may be possible to shorten the validity period of the qualification itself and increase the frequency of renewals.

You also discussed incentive design to ensure that digital technologies are actually used in the field.

In addition, we should take a close look at the fact that the current analog efforts are not always able to achieve 100% accuracy, and instead of requiring 100% accuracy for digital technology, we should present guidelines and development Targets on how much risk should be allowed and how much level should be required.

In addition, you pointed out that instead of searching for and cataloguing only technologies and services, we should catalog and categorize the guidelines themselves, which are a layer above that and contain the regulations set by each government agency and business operator in the regulation.

On the next page, this is what Mr. Ezaki summarized as the points of discussion after the meeting. Going forward, the Secretariat would like to manage this as a long list so that the points of discussion do not fall down even if the points you pointed out are inserted into the long list.

On the next page, the 14th Working Group Meeting of the Digital Rincho was held last Wednesday, and we received many comments from members of the Working Group Meeting.

First of all, in terms of the development of maps and catalogs, I believe that they will grow in multiple stages. It is not enough to make one creation. In the future, it will be good to be able to match seeds with needs.

In addition, isn't it necessary to have a mechanism in which many people gather to work on the catalog and the improvement cycle goes around, and to work on increasing the number of viewers? If so, it will automatically become a good thing.

You also pointed out that Incentive design is important for the development of the Map Catalog, and I was wondering if we could consider cooperation with the Government of procurement.

In addition, although it is ideal for the private sector to take the lead in updating maps and catalogs, we should also consider a mechanism to prevent moral hazard from occurring in that case.

In addition, we are considering a Digital Marketplace (DMP) in Digital Agency. This is an argument about registering services that can be subject to government procurement in the marketplace in advance, and creating an atmosphere in which good digital technologies can be procurement flexibly rather than through competitive bidding. Some pointed out that there is a possibility of cooperation with DMP.

In addition, regarding the ideal way of the catalog, when it is introduced at the site, what the price system is is quite important, and it is necessary to clearly understand the cost aspect. In this regard, we are currently soliciting public participation in advance for the digital completion of the course, and at that time, we are trying to include the cost in the questions, but I think there is room for ingenuity in terms of a more user-friendly display method.

In addition, when introducing technology, there are parts that can be solved only by technology and parts that can be solved by operation, so it would be good if we could sort out how to operate it in addition to sorting out information about the technology itself. I think this is similar to the point that you pointed out that best practices are important as reference information.

In addition, you pointed out the risk aspect. There are civil liability, criminal liability, and administrative liability in cases where problems occur due to the use of technology, and I believe that the ideal form of each should be thoroughly examined. I believe that administrative liability is related to the theme raised in the entire Digital Rinsho, such as the departure from the infallibility of administration.

Also, shouldn't we carefully consider our responsibilities in the event that we do not achieve the performance indicated in the catalog? In the field of IT services, the concept of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) is widely spread, and some pointed out that this would be a useful reference.

Also, regarding the development of a technology catalog in advance, I think it would be good to consider the ideal way of developing the catalog while obtaining feedback.

In addition, the Digital Architecture Design Center (DADC) of the IPA has classified types of identity verification and issued guidelines that summarize the need for this level of intensity of identity verification, and some pointed out that such guidelines could be used as a reference.

On the next page, with regard to the Technology Catalog, although there are some parts that overlap with what I have just presented, we are already aware of the issues of Trust's security measures and who will be responsible, and I believe that it will be a rather difficult discussion, but I believe that it is necessary to organize it firmly without running away from it.

On the next page, as a possible agenda for the next session and beyond, we will continue to discuss the ideal map and catalog in a broad sense, but I would appreciate if you could also discuss how to proceed with risk assessments of security and other areas in the use of technology, and how and where to start implementing technology validation.

As I will report on the last page, as of September 30, we started preliminary maintenance of the technology catalog last Friday. To be specific, as I reported, we have started a public offering of technologies necessary for digitalization and digital completion for training and testing on the Digi-cho website. You can also see the application form, so I would like to hear your points, including whether this was sufficient and whether there should have been more questions like this. Since the deadline is October 21, we are soliciting applications, so after that, we will start organizing for publication as a trial version while looking at the results, and I would like to hear your opinions before publication.

That's all the report from the office.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.
As for the opinions and questions from the members of the Committee in response to the explanation by the Secretariat, as announced by the Secretariat at the beginning, I would like to take some time after all the explanations by the Committee are completed.

Now, let's move on to the next agenda.

This time, I would like to ask the members of the Information-Technology Promotion Agency, commonly known as IPA, to make a proposal and explain the "Technology Map Technology Catalog," which is mentioned in the third point of the agenda.

The members are making interesting and useful software in various places, and their work is very practice-oriented. I think the recommendations from the members this time will be very helpful in considering the direction of the promotion of technology-based regulatory reform in the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Noboru Member : Hello, I'm Noboru.
Today, I wrote a little strange slide, but I would like to explain it orally.

What I would like to propose is, in general, what kind of article should be written in this technical catalog, who should be addressed, what kind of system should be used to write the article, the nature of the specific content of the article, and what kind of system should be used to edit the article.

What I will talk about in the future is that in the United States, for example, where this technology has been successfully incorporated into organization, Japanese companies have started to take the lead in using cloud systems such as those of Microsoft and Amazon. I would like to talk about what has historically worked well.

The other thing is, as Professor Ezaki introduced earlier, I didn't write much, but I wrote technical articles in the same way as Microsoft, so the software I created has been widely spread. I have created three large ones, and about 6 million users use VPN software around the world, and 240,000 people use telework for private sector. Telework for LGWAN in local government is used by 790 government agencies. All of them are freeware-like and open-source, but they were trusted and used in many Japanese organization. I would like to explain based on my experience that this was important to do so.

Regarding the outline on page 1, this shows that even if it is a good technology, it is very difficult to ask the outside to use it for organization. This is because organization, particularly Japanese large companies and administrative agencies, have the nature of repeating the previous move continuously, do not want to change, and are basically excluded from the outside as foreign substances. National organizations and Japanese companies are actively disseminating information like a campaign, but I don't hear much about what is happening later. I think it will usually disappear and cool down without going in well.

I have illustrated this in a diagram. In organization, there is a strong wall at the top of the diagram, and there is something like a firewall. Even if we say that there is a way to use technology like this, and that we will use it to improve existing operations, the conventional methods inside are already very wide, and we do not want to change them, so they will be repelled.

This firewall is very similar to a computer firewall, as shown in the figure below. It is extremely difficult to get information from the outside into the inside by starting from the outside, but if you start from the inside and increase the number of allies in the inside so that you can get information from the outside, this firewall is completely flexible and unidirectional, so it is best to get information from the inside to the outside.

In addition, as I will say later, cloud products and OS products from Amazon and Microsoft, which are popular in Japanese society because they are all cloud, have also been widely used by increasing the number of allies in the organization and gaining the support of individuals in the organization, as I will say later. If we can successfully transmit appropriate information and make companies want to use it, it will spread even among traditional Japanese companies, and since they used it, we will use it, so it will spread to other organization, and I think it will spread rapidly throughout society. The purpose of my statement today is as follows.

I will give you an idea of what to do specifically.

In digital technology, for example, compared with conventional industrial products, it takes a large budget to build a plant, a petrochemical complex, and an iron works. If you can build such a thing, it is very simple, and it will be smooth if you do it in a top-down manner. In the case of digital technology, it is very detailed and precise, and the range of abilities of individuals in organization is very wide, so there are a small number of people with large abilities. When we are in organization, it does not work to send information to people with average abilities. In the third page below, there are three groups in organization.

Number 1 is a group of great people. Number 2 is a management administrative organization that does very large-scale daily work, in other words, organization, a group of salarymen. Number 3 is a person who has a small number of independent brains that actually exist in organization, prefers trial and error, and is a substantial technical decision-maker.

The nominal decision-maker is, of course, No. 1, but although they are very good at conventional industry-type decision making and leadership as I mentioned earlier, they are not so good at technology, especially digital technology, and even if the first person thinks that it should be used, it is fine to that extent, but if the first person pushes the second person to use it, I think that the second person is a group of salarymen who prefer conventional methods and do not receive much training in judgment and risk management based on individual trial and error and individual expertise. I think that the second person is a very wonderful person, and the second person is a person who cannot run a Japanese organization without this, and has high value necessary for large-scale and daily operations. Therefore, the second person is wonderful, but in particular, digital technology is not utilized even if the first person is brought to the second.

The method of injecting it into the first and then dropping it into the third does not work very well. Because the third person knows the essence of the technology, the first person, who is doubtful about whether he or she knows the essence of the technology, is pushed to the third from the top. Such cases are common. Recently, big data, blockchain, AI, and Web3.0 have been saying anything and everything, so there is nothing good. From the third point of view, the first person says, but I try to ignore it.

Then, this time, I drew the same thing in the figure, but there is organization, and on the left side are human resources who can work their brains on their own responsibility in technology, and on the left is A, and on the right is organization, who is like a salaryman, and B. It is difficult to utilize even if technical information is injected into the vast average level of B, so my idea is that information transmission, as shown in red in this figure, should be injected into A on the left first, because A on the left has substantial decision-making power, although it is a small number of A, and A on the left has substantial influence, although the official does not have authority.

And in order to inject into A on the left, I think it is important how to create content that can be accepted by them naturally. If it is accepted by A, it will gradually move from the left (A) to the right (B) like an apple mark because A and B are in the same organization, there is a relationship of trust, and the wall of organization is thin. A mechanism for large-scale operation will be created on the right (B), and I think that people on the left (A) will definitely participate in that case, and I think that this will lead to the goal of connecting daily large-scale operation to the end on the right.

This is a diagram of the object of my technology catalog and the architecture to inject it into organization.

Next, I would like to state my thoughts on methodology.

What kind of information do the people called Group A practically accept and eagerly read? This is exactly what the people of Group A, who support the computers of Japanese companies in the 30 years from the' 90s to 2020, have read in the past 30 years. I thought it would be a great reference. The magazines on the upper right are "I/O," "ASCII," "UNIXMAGAZINE," and "BASIC Magazine." These magazines have been read by the people who support today's computers since they were young and in the company. They are amazing. There are three amazing elements.

First, there is a wide variety of high-level information. This is a computer story with a huge number of pages every month. It is written on a technical level. In addition, the document is not a power point that is often used for great people, such as Janjaka. It has a fairly academic atmosphere. However, it is not an academic paper, nor is it difficult to read. It is reasonably easy to read, and even people who want to know about knowledge that they do not know about computers can read it. Even if people who are familiar with computers read it, they can learn knowledge and culture. I think this is wonderful.

Second, I think there was interactivity. I buy a book at a bookstore every month, and I read magazine articles by my seniors that it is amazing, and they write about examples of technical utilization. This language, this hardware, this OS, and this can be combined to do this. If you say that you could do something new when you tried it, you will want to write it next time. At that time, there was no Internet, so I told the editor of the magazine that I would write it, and he said, "Please go ahead." He was able to publish a manuscript in this authoritative magazine, and I think more than half of the time he relied on contributions from readers like that. This is the second.

The third is that we can see the ingenuity that engineers are enthusiastic about. As mentioned earlier, in addition to the serious article, it came with photos of people who actually wanted to use such a strange thing, examples of using it in organization, photos and sample code, and above all, a CD-ROM that they could try next time. I think this is already a sermon to Buddha, but there was not enough Internet, so they were looking forward to the CD-ROM.

I scanned one book a little. This "ASCII" magazine, October 1998 issue, is a sample. It has 500 pages. First of all, it is amazing from the advertising column. It has a catch phrase for Intel's great people, "What made it stand out was its performance." But in addition, it has a lot of details at the bottom. It says both things, such as performance benchmarks and what makes the Pentium II processor different. I write big things and I write small things. In recent materials, there are two extremes, one is that everything is big and the other is that everything is small. It is amazing that I write both things. There are 500 pages every month, and it costs 980 yen.

As I mentioned earlier, it comes with a fun CD-ROM every month. Microsoft's Edge and Firefox, which are now very popular, came with it as a bonus to CD-ROMs before they became popular. Everyone read it, tried it, and became fans of Microsoft and Firefox.

Next, let's look at the table of contents. There are many of them that I mentioned earlier. They are distributed in PDF, so I would like you to expand them. First of all, there is a list of what I was able to do by using this digital technology with diversity and exciting content. When you look at this, you can usually find what you are interested in, and the page number is written, so anything is fine. You can edit the video, or you can open it quickly. When you open it quickly, the content is like this. This text is pretty clean in Japanese, and it has been proofread many times. It is similar to an academic paper, but it is not so difficult and it is just right.

The content is very rich. For example, "The great content of WindowsNT5.0 beta 2." What this is about is that there was a kernel called NT, which was not popular at that time. Thanks to this article, it was accepted by organization uchi waza operators, and later it became widely popular among companies. Today, it is called WindowsXP, Vista, 10, 11, Azure, and so on. It was 30 years ago that everyone was using it.
Articles about the office and Japanese people were written not only by Microsoft in the United States, but also by Japanese companies. For example, Mr. ○ ○, Manager of ○ ○ Section at Sony Corporation, an article about the DV codec software I created was posted by a Japanese company under his real name. "Invitation to XML." XML had just come out at that time, and after this, it rapidly spread to Japanese companies. By the way, before this, binary protocols were completely diverse and diverse, but XML was unified. I think people who read such articles acquired technology and actually created business.

In fact, government officials as experts have been actively contributing technical information to magazines such as "ASCII." For example, there is an article by Mr. Maekawa, an IPA official of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. It is an interview on "What will happen to the Internet in 2020?" I think it will be the backbone of terabits. In fact, according to statistics from Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, it is a backbone of about 10 terabits, so this is very true. There is another article. "Mobile phones will become computers." "Environments where people are always connected to networks will come in another five years." This is the agenda of another person. In 2020, IPv6 will spread. The content is very accurate. This is 1998, so 24 years ago, such accurate content was written. Isn't it surprising?

However, recently, such deep technical content has been disappearing. On the other hand, as stated on this slide, the three point set, (1) "Clearly communicate the points of discussion accurately," (2) "Write in three lines," and (3) "Use many images so that you can read them without using your brain. Avoid technical descriptions so that they are easy to understand in organization." These ideas have become best practices. Even if we publish based on this idea in our technical catalog, it has already become red ocean strategy, and I think it will not receive much attention.

Therefore, my proposal is now spread in the upper way and becomes a competition, so it is technically wide and deep like the magazine article I mentioned earlier, and it is descriptive (descriptive means in writing, not in PowerPoint), and it is rich in the collateral content of technical thought and internal structure. It takes effort to chew when you read it all, but it is enjoyable. In other words, there is no supply because no one has written an orthodox technical article, so I think there is no doubt that if you write this article, it will be very popular. Many magazines and books have disappeared, and even those who want to read this have nothing to read, so everyone is hungry, so if you prepare this, it will naturally penetrate society through Group A human resources. I will give you an example later, but I think the technology catalogs of Microsoft and AWS are also taking advantage of this good point.

I mentioned a little about how I can write such an article, but there are from 1 to 12, and I think these 12 are important, such as technical accuracy, breadth and depth, as you will see in the PDF later.

For example, No. 7 is that an article of such a level is desired because it is not read unless it is an article of such a level that the writer can instantly see that he or she has a particularly high ability in a technical group of a higher level than himself or herself.

Number 10 is not limited to the technical content. For example, if you describe the power relationship in organization and the impact on society as a whole, you will feel like you are technically responsible for innovation, and I think you will do it.

And, most of all, number 12, playful. It says that about 5% of interesting sentences, secret photos, and spilled stories are often read. I think it is important to arrange this moderately.

Then, as I drew in the figure below, there are often only two administrative documents on the left, and on the left, there are junk food-like PowerPoint documents that do not require the reader to use his or her brain, on the left, and on the right, there are very difficult papers, technical books, and traditional administrative documents. These are extremes, so I think that the technical fair article is the magazine article that I mentioned earlier, which hits the middle middle part.

There are many cases in which they have actually succeeded in doing so. Microsoft and Amazon are actually doing something like a big advertisement of a technology consulting company posted on the wall of an international airport for the heads of companies when they return to Japan. I think it has become popular recently. However, in the 1990s and 2000s, which were the period of spread, it was not like that. As mentioned earlier, they were used by engineers by writing many technical fair articles. Microsoft and Amazon are still doing this. They are not only excellent in computer software technology, but also excellent in documentation ability. They are doing both of the two.

In the case of Japanese companies, if you don't know this, you have to contact sales and support because there are no documents. However, Group A human resources hidden in organization want to find a solution by themselves in the middle of the night. It takes about three days for sales and support, so it takes time to chew a wide range of things for Microsoft and Amazon, but it has all the deep sentences, so it is important to find out by the night of the day.

Second, as I read it, I think I realize that it is not just a way to use technology, but that the abilities and thought processes of the people who made the technology, that is, the orthodox Meriken engineers who live in Microsoft and Amazon, are divided, and I think I will read this more and more to strengthen my brain rather than just my work. I think these are the keys.

Therefore, if Digital Agency is also going to publish a technology catalog, I think it is necessary to publish a short article in order to realize the policy in the short term, but I think it would be good to revive such an article with the intention of doing so in two years, five years, 10 years, or 40 years. When you have a technical problem, you can go to xx. digital. go. jp of the Digi-cho Agency by using the URL in the browser. You can find the top page of the technology catalog, such as Amazon and Microsoft, and follow it from here. It is amazing. For example, if you want to research Japanese law, the e-Gov law site is popular, and I think it has been around for 20 years. I think it would be good to create a technology version like this.

And PDF is not good. When you edit HTML, HTTP, or HTML-based articles, you should edit text files instead of Word or PowerPoint. You should attach metadata for each category, create a cover of Technology Map from it, automatically generate it, and link to each article from the cover of Technology Map. If it doesn't happen automatically, you will eventually stop maintaining it and leave it unused, so Microsoft and Amazon do this properly. As shown in the picture on page 12.

And it is important to accept contributions and amendments from readers.

In addition, when a reader makes a contribution, the shorter the time it takes for the contribution to be reflected, the more motivated the writer is to write the next article. Although this is a technical matter, it is surprising that the editorial system accepts a pull request, Git, and if it is approved, it will be reflected in a short time. I think that the number of articles will increase with the joy of being involved in this digital technology catalog.

If that is the case, there is a concern that moral hazard will occur if private sector is made to lead the writing of articles, which was a concern raised at the 14th Working Group meeting earlier. In other words, there is a spam that is flooded with fake and for-profit articles. Therefore, I think that it is not automatic, but on an approval basis, if the purpose of a technical article is to spread technical information even if it is written by a company author, it may be possible to allow the article to be published if it is indirectly for-profit but directly different. If the content is suspicious, there is a permanent organization like us, and if there is no problem in showing it there, it is OK. If it is not particularly suspicious, I think that it is OK for a government official of the Digi Agency to approve it with the Pompon.

Finally, I made a prototype system. I studied how modern Microsoft and Amazon document sites work behind the scenes and made the same one. I will enlarge it a little later, but the rough steps are as follows.

First, in No. 1, someone posts. This is a modification of an existing article or an addition of a new article. Then, this is stored in the repository server, and there is a person like an employee of the Digi Agency, an editor. It is reviewed by the second, and approved by the third. Then, in less than 1 minute, the fourth runs, the article is stored in a web server device, and it can be viewed by the fifth web browser.

This is also a prototype that I made myself, but the 15th page is a page that users and readers can see. When I said that PDF is not good and HTML is better, usually, a URL is decided first, and if someone copies the URL, this chapter and this section in the page are displayed, and an immutable URL is attached. This is very important. And it is easy to copy and paste, so it is easy to reuse it for technical documents in each organization that accepts it. If it is Word or PDF, it is very complicated because it has format information. In addition, images, videos, and tables can be pasted. This is the image that readers can see.

So, what kind of screen will people who write sentences and articles work on? There are two types of this. First, there is a way to complete it only with a web browser. You write it in a text file as in the photo on page 16. In a text file, you can't set the font size, so if you want to set it, you can write a format called Markdown, and write that this is a heading, a chapter, a clause, a bullet point, and a table. This is a web browser, but there are many engineers who don't like the web, so I think it is good to make it possible to edit it using the command git for them.

Next is the review screen. For example, the person in charge of daily reviews at the Digi-cho will see the difference that this person has written such an additional article. I think it is good to decide whether to approve or reject it.

Then, if it is approved in about 10 seconds, the contents of the Digital Technology Catalog will actually be rewritten and made public to the whole world. The contributors are very happy, and if it can be handled so quickly, we think that we will write even better articles, and good articles will be collected from many Japanese engineers without cost. People from A organization who have actually found use cases will write articles and post them with pleasure, so B organization, C organization, and D organization will be in the mood to try them. I think it would be great if such a good technology catalog site could continue to have value for about 30 years.

That's all. Thank you very much.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much, Noboru-san. It is very easy to understand, but thank you for introducing the actual example to the point where we have already made a prototype. It seems that we have started to discuss it in the chat, but thank you very much.

In that case, I would like to make it my fourth and most important opportunity to exchange views, although it is possible to do so for a little more than one hour.

We would like to hear your opinions and questions about today's discussion and how to proceed in the future. In particular, the policy of the Committee is an important content related to future discussions with you and responses, so we would appreciate if as many members as possible could give us their frank opinions.

If you wish to speak, we will designate you by raising your hand using the Webex Hand Raise function.

Then, anyone can raise their hand and speak. Also, Mr. Kawabata has already written a lot, but would you like to speak?

Kawabata Member : I see. I'm sorry, I just said something because it came out from the era I had been reading a lot. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm overseas and I'm from a place like this. Nice to meet you.

I think you are absolutely right. In the past, there was quite a lot of information from a third party perspective, in the owned media of companies that were already quite start-ups or had technology products. There were blogs and blogs, and engineers didn't have time. Users wanted to acquire skills in a very short time, so they liked something that could be read quickly in the form of a blog. At the same time, people who introduced decision making liked seminars. There was a tendency to do it in two ways. I think it is very effective.

However, at the same time, when I bring it to persuade them, for example, it may sound bad or simple, but it is more effective to bring it together with the fact that it was published in the Nikkei Shimbun. That is because the neutrality of media is guaranteed, and the example of [ASCII] that you have just summarized in the past secures media neutrality, and there is a touching point that they are willing to participate in it. These two points cannot be guaranteed by owned media, and I think you are right.

For example, Digital Agency will support the platform behind the scenes. In order to support the foundation, for example, Microsoft, which is actually Amazon, is hiring paper editors for magazines when magazines are in bad shape. Why? You can post a lot of information on the web unconditionally, but in the case of paper media, you can post as much information as you want to convey by carefully examining it with the eyes of a professional. What is good about this is that if the amount of information is large for the understanding of the reader, the information will be sated, and if it exceeds this point, the reader will not read it anymore. However, paper media has a rule of 180 pages per month, so there is a work to reduce the amount of information. Taking advantage of the fact that paper editors will be surprised, we are actually taking steps to reduce the amount of information. Later, digital skills and English skills can be acquired in-house. In particular, when I tell the Japanese people about the actual situation, I feel that there are many people in the local market. From the flow of people around us, I feel that. education

Therefore, what you said was well organized, and from the perspective of the media industry, and as a reader or a representative of users, I often write from the perspective of employment, and I thought I could agree with that point of view.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.

There is an opinion from Mr. Katoh that it would be a good idea if such a specific plan had already been formulated. One of the contents is that it would be necessary if Digital Agency could advance the dissemination of such information in a truly professional manner.

Do you have any other opinions? In addition to Mr. Noboru's comments, I would like to hear your comments on what the committee should do. With the show of hands function.
Then, Mr. Nemoto of Keidanren, please.

Nemoto Constituent : Thank you. Can you hear me?

Ezaki Chairman : I'm fine.

Nemoto Constituent : Mr. Noboru's presentation is wonderful, and I'm not a technician or anything, so I can't approach from that direction. Anyway, I'm all for your opinion that you can do this, so why don't you try it?

However, as I mentioned at the pre-meeting, I am still concerned about how to incorporate this into society. At the beginning of the meeting, the Chairman of the Council, Mr. security, talked about the Nikkei Shimbun today. In addition, in the talk about Legal Tech, it has become clear that there is an extremely large wall in the utilization of technology in the field of business monopoly.

Today, I would like to talk only about the area of lawyers. In the case of X-rays, we are currently interpreting all X-rays, such as lung cancers, and there are discussions that could lead to arguments that AI cannot be used to read them. In other business monopoly areas, I do not believe that we should be able to provide an argument that the use of computers is unacceptable. In order to avoid this, I would like to ask each ministry and agency to clarify what they are trying to protect in each regulation, the purpose and level of the regulation, and what technologies can be used and to what extent they can be protected. At the same time, I believe that it will be difficult for the Committee.

At the beginning, in the third part of the Committee's Goals that Mr. Suga spoke about, he added that the way regulation itself will be constantly reviewed. I believe Mr. Noboru's speech will include all of the first, second, and third parts of the Committee's Goals. However, in order to make it effective, if the way regulation itself is not reviewed, there will be Technology Map and catalogs as reference information. I hope that this will lead to a review of regulation.

That's all.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.
This is Suga san, do you have any reaction?

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you very much.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Kawabata for pointing out the significance of Mr. Kawabata being a journalist. The proposal by Mr. Noboru Noboru was that we wanted to do this as it is the moment we came, and that the Secretariat wanted to do it without making any strange arrangements. So, I would like to ask you today whether this is the first direction to aim for in terms of the publication of catalogs and maps. At that time, the ability of the writer's brush is quite important, and I was wondering if it would be collected by the Digi Agency. However, I received a reassuring comment from Mr. Kawabata that it would be collected soon, so I am very grateful that it has already been established. I would like to consult with you specifically.

In addition, with regard to the points pointed out by Mr. Nemoto, the Working Group will have heated discussions, and in short, feedback will be provided on the state of regulation itself, which is the essence of Technology Map. I believe that discussions will have to be held at a fairly high level of intellectual level, but I would like to firmly engage in such discussions.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.
It is really about what to do with regulation when new technologies come out. We must hold discussions in the form of incentives. Thank you very much for pointing out the importance of this.
Besides.

Since the Ochiai members would like to speak, no other hands have been raised. So, Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member : I am Ochiai, a member of the Ad Hoc Working Group.

In response to Mr. Nemoto's remarks earlier, as Mr. Suga mentioned earlier, I believe that agile governance in digital principles is one of the keywords. I believe that the Working Group may consult with the side that is reviewing regulation about the technical arrangement of these matters. On the other hand, I believe that it is important to discuss the Working Group's review policies while reviewing them again while receiving feedback on the progress made in the arrangement of technologies. With that in mind, I participated today. In addition, members of the Working Group are also participating, so I hope that we can work together to make them more effective.

That's all.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much. That's right. I think we really need to advance the discussion in an agile manner.

Then, Mr. Ogino, please.

Ogino Member : There were various stories about regulation. I think this subcommittee was premised on the fact that evaluation validation would not be certified, but in the case of telling people that there are good things like this, security has obtained certification from such a company, and Japanese companies are making products that take security seriously. Recently, there have been a considerable number of manufacturers. Given this, foreign products have functions, but security is a little weak, and Japanese products are doing quite well. Given these incentives, I think it would be good if security's catalog had an appeal that it is doing this much.

Actually, the situation overseas is moving very much right now. In the United States, there is a move to make it a procurement requirement. There are public comments and it is being discussed a lot. According to those who discussed it in Washington, D.C., it is currently being discussed whether it will be a regulation requirement or a procurement requirement.

Then, in Europe, a bill was submitted in Q3 of this year. If this bill is passed, there will be a fairly strict requirement that devices must not be sold in Europe unless certain security requirements are met. If this bill is passed, security requirements will be imposed on devices to be sold. The bill is the EuropeanCyberResilienceAct, commonstandardforcybersecurityproduct. This bill includes a budgetary measure to allocate 4.5 man-months as a dedicated person and to provide solid support for the EU. It also says that there will be a one year grace period when it comes into effect, and it will be implemented from 2024.

While watching such moves in Europe and the United States, we need to consider domestic procurement requirements. In Digital Agency, we are considering government procurement, but I think that from the perspective of exporting companies and from the perspective of venture companies, when they consider exporting overseas, they should consider cooperating with Europe and the United States and looking at Europe and the United States from a lateral perspective. This is an explanation of the current situation, but if you have time, I would like to summarize the current situation overseas and make an announcement.

That's all.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much. I think it has been discussed in the preparatory meeting that we must always pay attention to the fact that it is not just a domestic issue.

Then, Mr. Ogawa, please.

Member Ogawa : Hello. Nice to meet you.

I was listening to Mr. Nemoto and Mr. Ochiai's remarks as I thought they were quite reasonable. I believe you just mentioned Cyber security. In addition, there are problems in personal data, and I believe there are various related regulation that need to be addressed. From that perspective, as stated this time, themes such as the most effective way to protect risks and risk reevaluation are extremely important. Of course, there may be discussions on changing regulation itself, but I believe that the social implementation of digitalization will be driven only when we think about the risks that deviate from the suitability of the existing regulation for its purpose or requirements in the same way.

We participate in discussions on Promotion of DX at various operating companies every day, but recently, I feel that the situation has changed significantly. Until now, risk control has been said to be opposed to defense when driving in Promotion of DX, but now, I recognize that response to regulation and effective control of new risks associated with Promotion of DX are coming together in aggressive driving.

The reason for this is that the social changes caused by DX and digitalization are extremely rapid. In addition, once a risk is actualized, the impact is enormous. The speed of the impact of the actualization of the risk is extremely fast, and in some cases, it crosses national borders in a blink of an eye, and the scalability of the risk is much greater than before.

Of course, risk control, which is my specialty, used to be centered on so-called discovery control in our terminology, such as taking samples and checking them, checking whether there are any problems in demonstration, auditing, and inspection. As I mentioned earlier, under DX, once a risk is actualized, the speed is too fast and the impact is too much. It is too late to do so after the risk is actualized. Because the social impact is too large, the importance has shifted greatly from discovery control to automated prevention control.

In this sense, I believe that a wide range of technologies will be gathered from private sector through open recruitment this time, and I believe that it is necessary to consider implementation, which automatically has such a preventive control function in the system and digital functions, as a procurement requirement.

The most important issue at this time is whether this risk can be identified in advance. When making a regulation digitalization, it is important to first clarify what the regulation was intended to be, what kind of private sector or consumer interests should be protected, or what kind of new risks can be created by the digitalization, and then to identify the risks.

However, as we have experience, the risks initially identified will naturally change as technology and the internal and external environments change. We must take handle appropriately of this. Therefore, if the government is the one who initially identifies risks, I recognize that there is a limit to what the government alone can be responsible for. Therefore, for example, including such matters, the sufficiency of risk identification itself, I would like to seek opinions from private sector openly to some extent, or as you just mentioned, Agile, I would like to see a mechanism for soliciting opinions on such additional risks to be considered as appropriate. I would like to see a new mechanism for this. Therefore, assuming that it is always dynamic, I would like to discuss with you how we can make a mechanism with dynamic compatibility a social implementation. Thank you.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much. I heard that we need to create a new methodology for risk management. Like Noboru mentioned earlier, we need to share expertise and specifics, and we need to provide information on how it will change rapidly. I think it is very important to create a liaison relationship with industry. Thank you very much.

Are there any other members? The hand is not raised.

Then, Saito-san from DADC, please.

Saito, Member : Thank you very much. Did you get on the screen?

I find it very interesting to listen to everyone's stories. Noboru's explanation was very good, so I felt that I should do it right away.

In that sense, I think there are two in the discussion on systematization for the implementation of the technology into society. In the discussion on systematization for the private sector of what the purpose of the regulation is and how the regulation authorities will use the technology to move from the current AsIs to ToBe, there is one talk about systematization for the realization of the system, although it is not Mr. Nemoto's talk. It may be about the framework or architecture, but I think it is better to discuss how to do it in this meeting. design

In addition, to put it the other way around, there is talk about the so-called capabilities (necessary to respond to the risks) that should be taken into account in response to the risks that are changing dynamically. There is also talk about what capabilities the current regulation authorities should prepare to realize. Therefore, when we talk about applying various current technologies and digital technologies to various parts of regulation, we understand that one system implementation for such a social design is necessary.

In addition, I would like to add one more point. In the various discussions I had earlier, I would like to talk about how to create an ecosystem. In a sense, it is about creating an ecosystem in which people in private sector apply various technologies and provide incentives to revitalize it. There is also another question about how to create a division that will be a driver of this ecosystem.

So, in a sense, in the talk about how to give incentives earlier, there is a so-called GAFAM, a platformer unit somewhere, and while looking at the whole thing, it has to apply the technology of the people of private sector and provide the technology to the authorities of regulation and various companies. In the end, business operators and the authorities of regulation will apply technology from a certain field and replace a certain part of regulation with digital technology. There is another story about systematization, about systematization of the ecosystem, about activating activities in this area. I thought that something should be considered for that.

Basically, we will do social implementation in the end. After social implementation, it must be continuously sustainable. If we discuss where to create a organization with what capabilities, after actual application, in a sense, operation and maintenance will be done from the planning development, which is a story before creation, to the life cycle of the operation maintenance. I think we should consider such a form.

As an image, I do not yet know what kind of discussion I should have with you at the beginning of the process when capturing such a system. First of all, I believe that there will be a specific field or a trial like use cases, and I think that it will be fine to create the overall picture I just mentioned. I would like to ask for your cooperation.

That's all.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.

You pointed out that we need to carefully consider the long-term architectural structure of implementation. I think you are right. In a sense, it has the function of a think tank. I believe that we need to thoroughly discuss how to create the next form of organization beyond the role of a think tank, and then bring it to implementation. Thank you very much.

Do you have any other comments?

Mr. Nakamura, please.

Nakamura Member : I'm Nakamura.

As I listened to your story, I thought about many things. First of all, I think that the journalism you mentioned earlier is actually edited for quite a purpose. In Noboru's story earlier, when I was younger, I worked with the editor-in-chief of "UNIXMAGAZINE" and so on. After all, I would like to write an article with a certain direction, introduce technology, and share what happened when I used use cases in this way. I will do my best to edit such things.

Kawabata-san mentioned earlier that Microsoft and Amazon are hiring such editors, but they are highly specialized in such matters, and when I think about how to do it, I don't think the government will actually do it.

I am in full agreement with the idea of implementing the system that Mr. Noboru mentioned earlier, but in fact, the magazine has a lot of editors. I think that neutrality is journalism, and as journalism, it is not biased, in a sense, it is biased, but there is an editorial policy, and I wonder if I can see how the government will be involved in leading it.

So, when the government does something, does everyone believe in such information that the government has created? So, how can the Digi-cho support the system to operate this system? It may be any external organization, or it may be a general corporation. I felt that it would not last long unless we consider a mechanism to operate this system well. This is my first point.

In my experience, I have been writing magazines such as Unimagazine for a long time, and I can write about technology and use cases as much as I can. As I said earlier, how can I change the minds of people who are doing regulation, and how can I put a nail in it? I think the strategy is that the world will change if more and more key people share the idea that Noboru Noboru was able to do it, but I also have some doubts about whether regulation will really be destroyed by that. So I don't know. In the United States, for example, if you say that NIST is doing it, there is a sense of trust, and there is an atmosphere that we should follow what they say. I have a slight feeling that if we can create a crown that is technologically neutral and that we are doing it properly, it will turn into an interesting direction.

I'm sorry, but it is vague and I think it is interesting as a direction, but it is quite difficult for the government to do it directly, or it may be fine if a new organization is created in a very serious way and it does it, and the Digi-cho is in a serious way. However, I felt that it would be difficult to manage this kind of information well unless it was edited in a very neutral manner and with the intention of leading the world.

That's all.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.
I heard that we need to pay attention to the magazine, or the place where the information is not just shared, and this is similar to what Mr. Saito said. I think he pointed out that unless a new trusted place is created, the support part cannot be made.

Other members.
Matsuo-san, please.

Matsuo Member : I'm Matsuo from the University of Tokyo.
There are two points. At the beginning of Mr. Suga's explanation, it was stated that the goal of this committee is to create knowledge about examples of the utilization of advanced technology. However, I would like to complain a little. It is said that using examples of utilization does not start until the first example appears. Actually, it is wonderful that technology can be done before examples appear. I think it is important to do it after some examples appear, but I am a little dissatisfied that it is limited to this.

The other part is what Mr. Noboru explained. He gave me a very strong explanation. It seems that I used to read such magazines waiting to be published once a month, so I can understand it very well. I think that times are changing, and people don't read them just by publishing highly specialized articles. I think that is what Japanese academic societies are suffering from.

Therefore, I think that creating a system and making it easier to edit is a trend that has been going on for a long time, so I think it is fine, but I think it will be difficult if it is just this. As you said, the purpose of this conference is how technology will change the future, so from that perspective, we will firmly communicate that technology has the potential to create such a future. As you said, it may be related to what kind of editing you will do, but I think that we will write down the technical evidence at that time. In that sense, the examples you mentioned are many examples of articles that truly look to the future, so in that sense, I think it is close to that purpose, but I think it is to make that purpose clearer, to make it possible to change the future with technology, to transmit that, to collect examples of that, and to connect that to regulatory reform.

That's all.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.
What should I do with this, Suga?

Secretariat (Suga) : Are you ready? Thank you for your various opinions.

The point that Dr. Matsuo pointed out was actually a bit of a debate during my talk with the minister. In other words, I think there is quite a bit of thought about whether to list items with zero adoption cases in the catalog or to recognize them as technology areas on the map. There is a possibility that you can bring regulation to some extent if you want to use it for use cases compliance. On the other hand, if you unlock the technology areas where regulation is available and implementation is not possible, the future may be changed by this technology. If so, there is a possibility that you will have to imagine the future without any specific examples. I would like to ask this committee to discuss which one to aim for. Therefore, the first point is that the Secretariat does not have the answer, but it is aware of the issues.

After this, if possible, I would like to hear comments from the members again. In the process of creating this Technology Map or catalog, there should be some intention of editing. In other words, it will not be a neutral and universal document that is meaningful for people around the world to see and interesting to read. I believe that there will be some intention as a nation that Japan wants technology to be used to this extent and that it should be used to change the world in order to successfully fuse safety and innovation of all activities in Japan at a high level. I believe that the point of view must be based on the safety of the lives and bodies of the Japanese people and Japan's national interests in the end, so I would like to hear whether it is OK to do so, or whether it is better to edit with the aim of higher reliability by an entity that is completely separate from such things.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.

Well, Mr. Endo, you are raising your hand, but first, Mr. Noboru, would you react a little?

Noboru Member : You can climb later.

Ezaki Chairman : I understand.
It was pointed out by Mr. Matsuo that there is a need for a catalog and articles from the perspective of not only what is moving now, but also how the direction will be directed and the possibility, as well as the acceleration of research development and business in that direction. This is something that is shared with you, and I believe that this issue should be discussed at this meeting.

Then, Mr. Endo, please.

ENDO MEMBER : Thank you very much.

It may be that I have not yet understood it. Is the main purpose of this meeting regulatory reform, is it to present the direction of future technology as Member Matsuo said earlier, or is it to go further and create a Technology Map that is easy for private sector to use? I still do not understand the logic of linking future technology and its map to regulatory reform, so I would like to catch up with it somehow. Speaking from my research area, I would like to see an opportunity for regulatory reform on digital to list the technologies related to security and the line-up, and for the Secretariat to sort out the risk factors. You may not be going that far, so I would like to know what you are going to do. Thank you very much.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.

Mr. Suga, do you have a reaction? Something to discuss about that.

Secretariat (Suga) : I would like to conduct technology exploration at the Secretariat. For example, we are currently searching for technologies and services that can be used when you want to take a training test in digital completion. I would like to expand this to all regulation areas in the future. I would like to consult with the Committee on how much and where to start.

Am I correct in assuming that you will look at the list of technologies that have been explored here and discuss whether there are such risks? Rather, as Mr. Ezaki pointed out, there are various guidelines and regulation for various risks, so do you intend to sort out the level of risk response required? Regarding this technology, for example, if it is Shochikubai, it is necessary to take measures at the level of Matsu. Traffic control will be a boost for the utilization of technology, so if you ask whether you intend to go that far, I think yes.

ENDO MEMBER : I would like to ask you to follow up later. I will consult with you individually.

Secretariat (Suga) : I understand.

Ezaki Chairman : One of the very thorny and difficult issues is what to do about the existing differences in regulation and views.

Is there anything else? There are some people who have not made a statement, but I would like you to make a statement.

Well, you've already written a lot of things in chat, but Mr. Kato, please speak up.

: Is it your own voice? It is as written. I don't think there is any in particular. The theme is quite large, and there are many people like the president of each organization, so it may be impossible to get a consensus. Therefore, it is okay to just proceed with the method of Mr. Noboru, who is said to be quite good now, but perhaps so-called backlog refinement, if we can do it, I don't think it will be extreme or strange. Because everyone here is an expert. However, if we don't do it, no matter how good the plot is, it will gradually deviate. So, I think it is best to try it once and repeat it at the next meeting. I think it is good to start the next cycle when the discussion becomes so huge that we cannot look back at it at some timing.

Ezaki Chairman : The other is to make sure that agile can do it, but don't throw it at officials just because they say they will do it today.

: Well, I think it is more important to make the next improvement faster when something is wrong or needs to be improved than to discuss the quality of a certain point or the content of a certain point. I think it is important for the members to agree on such a method to some extent, and to make it easier to communicate by using some tools. I think it is more important. I think there are many experts here on how to change things faster than what is good at a certain point, so I think it is better to build it first. I think everyone has various thoughts when they try to see a point.

Ezaki Chairman : Yes. That is very similar to the story of how to create the architecture that Mr. Saito said.

: Yes, I think so.

Ezaki Chairman : Mr. Nakamura said that he would like to agree on the outline of the editorial policy first, so I think it will be around next time. I think we will sort it out based on today's opinions.

Is there anyone else who has an opinion? I wonder if there are Mr. Nagai and Ms. Toyota who haven't made a statement.
How about Mr. Toyota?

TOYOTA Member : Then, may I? I think you are right about what you are talking about, so I think you are right about advancing to agile first.

If I were to say that I am listening to you from the side, it would seem that it is someone else's problem, but when I listen to you, there are a variety of people here, and of course, there are people who write programs in a complicated manner, and people who can be seen from a management perspective. Among them, I feel that there is a temperature difference or a gap in the area that they are looking at. Therefore, if I try to do all of them, I cannot catch up with them, so I feel that it is more realistic to focus on where to focus. I think it is a discussion that could be a fair argument.

For example, as a target, I would like to make it easy to use for people who are busy writing programs. But I think Mr. Noboru is saying that it will not be programming or git, but will be written as an article. However, if you go to regulation or other places, it will be structured, semantic, and edited. So, I think it will be a little more important to draw out which part will be the core of Technology Map.

For example, I am sorry to say that this is a story about the Expo, but there is a committee called PLL (People's Sliding Lab), and I was made to watch all the 500 or so ideas that were submitted. But in the end, almost no one has time to see the detailed data of each company, and everyone takes time to look at the first three PDFs. But in the end, it tends to be that the highest resolution core is almost unknown, so Noboru's story is to list very specific things separately so that it does not become so. Since the structuring part can be done many times later, I think it is very important to create a fluid media or platform that can be read and interpreted freely. If so, I feel that it is very important to specialize in the performance. Excuse me.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much. I think you are saying that we need to decide a little more about what kind of composition we will have very specifically.

Then, is Dr. Kawahara there?

, Kawahara: I was a little late, so I haven't been able to catch up with you very much. As I said at the time of the last preparation, I thought that writing this would lead to stories that would change various business models after that. In short, instead of saying that it went well, for example, create a module for inspection instead of visual inspection inspection. You can easily inspect just by looking at the soundness of the module itself, or you can relearn it. It is a dream not only in terms of information management but also in terms of business model. It is a dream. It is not just a statement that this can be replaced at this point in time, but in the future, as this technology progresses, maintenance and management will become easier. If this is included in the article, I feel that it will be possible to see different developments. I think I have added one point, although it is a different perspective from the point I just mentioned.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.

That is related to what Mr. Matsuo said. If we change this, what will happen next is also very important.

Then, Mr. Okada, may I ask you a question?

: I'm Okada. Nice to meet you.
I am also connected to Dr. Kawahara's talk, but I think it is okay to talk about data collection in various ways, including the development of applications as Dr. Noboru talked about, but when it comes to the machine that actually collects the data and uses it, I think the actual price is more important than the cost you mentioned earlier, so how will you show it?

In addition, as you mentioned earlier, infrastructure is used for the maintenance and management of infrastructure, but the most important point is who will maintain and manage the technology itself.

Furthermore, since most people do not like the initial investment, it is okay to use it in a place with an information infrastructure in various ways, but when it comes to buying things, the running cost is good, but there are cases where the initial money cannot be used, so in various ways, the cost and price will be decided. First of all, as Mr. Matsuo said earlier, I think it is good to put out more and more things at a place where there are things like this and things like this can be done.

When it comes to "Please use it," many people will try it, but in the end, they will not pay for it themselves. As I said, there will be talk about initial investment, so there will be many of them, so after saying "It's good for now," I will think about setting the price from the point of how much you will buy. Unless we take such an order, when it comes to "Please use it immediately," everyone will not give us a reason in various ways. Based on my own experience, I think it would be better to see two or three steps of exit strategy in the field.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much. I think you have pointed out quite a few points to be careful of as the contents of the catalog. Even if you do something that does not go well, it will not go well or implementation will not be done. I think it is a very important policy to be careful not to do so.

: That's right. During the SIP infrastructure, we created a catalog and a thick telephone directory to show various technologies to various people, and it itself has been read by various people. Even now, it can be accessed from the JST website. In the end, when we talk about the future, as you said, we have more and more data on safety and other matters from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and the Construction and Engineering Ministry. Even if we have more and more follow-ups from such places, it will be like money in the end. So, if we don't look at the second and third steps of the exit in various ways, we will stop at the end of various efforts. I feel that I cannot deny that.

Ezaki Chairman : That's right. Thank you very much. It will probably include discussions on what kind of incentives are being created in policy or business.

So, Kuma-san, could you please?

Kyuma Member : I am Kyuma of the National Agricultural Research Organization.
The purpose of this committee is how to make an existing regulation safer by using digital technology, and how to make a efficiency depending on the situation. From that perspective, as instructed by the members, digital maps and technology catalogs should not be completed once they are created, but should be evolved so that they are easier to use while being used and the content is enhanced. I think the utilization of the method proposed by Mr. Noboru in his lecture today is very effective.

Now, when digitalization a regulation, it is essential to organize the level of security required by each regulation and the environments in which it will be used. On the other hand, the digital technologies to be used are classified by performance and environment in which they will be used, and are organized as quantitative performance criteria. By doing so, it is possible to roughly know whether or not a regulation is a digitalization subject to the technology, and it is also possible to efficiency the horizontal deployment of the technology to other regulation. To that end, I think it is necessary to conduct hearings and questionnaires with the regulation ministries and agencies to know whether or not digital technologies can be used.

For example, even in regulation where image recognition technology is used, the required accuracy and use environments differ depending on the regulation under the jurisdiction of each regulation government agency. Therefore, it is not simple that it can be used because there are image processing technology and AI technology. I think it is necessary to hold a hearing with regulation government agencies, including the required accuracy and use environments. If you do not know the approach and specifications of each regulation government agency to regulation, I do not think you can make an excellent architecture design.
In addition, the technology catalog and digital map must not be operated by Digital Agency indefinitely, but must be operated by private sector at the end. Assuming that corporations such as IPA, start-ups, and think tanks in private sector will accept it, I think that it is necessary to discuss to what extent Digital Agency can transfer it to private sector, and how private sector can make it independent and operate it independently, although support will be necessary at first even after the transfer.

That's all.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much. Mr. Kyuma is actually making various adjustments, so I think he pointed out that it will probably not work unless you know what is happening on the ground, and that you should do it properly. Thank you very much.

Finally, Mr. Nagai, could you please?

Nagai Member : This is Astamuse Nagai.
I am sorry, but I am also participating in the process, so I may have already discussed it on the premise that I have not been able to catch up with all of them, but I think all of your stories are very convincing. In fact, when spreading technology, especially in overseas countries, there are many cases. I think there is a strategy to create players who can be accelerators. It may not be necessary to create incentives in design to make a business by doing such translations and interpretations for catalogs, but I think there is a limit to aiming to make everything directly understood by indirectly creating many players who can accelerate the introduction of technology, such as certifying such things. I thought while listening to your discussions that there is a possibility to create a certain number of player companies who can interpret and communicate such things and give advice to fill gaps in the media that can communicate in real time for direct and highly literate people. On the other hand, there is a possibility to create a certain number of player companies who can interpret and communicate such things and give advice to fill gaps in the media that can communicate in real time for highly literate people. design

That's all from me.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much. Your opinion is that implementation, including players, is extremely important when design. It is a really difficult issue, but in the future discussions, we will first create a good method and a method that can be done. At that time, we must be aware of the necessity of support. This is a problem that you have come up with.

Just in case, the person who is here today has made a round, but it is fine if it is only the second time. Is there anything you would like to say? Is that okay?
Then, Mr. Noboru, please.

Noboru Member : Noboru.
I think there are two ways. One is to summarize the important work of how to use this technology and the atmosphere of a magazine article in the past. The other is to make a regulation based on it. The other is to change the minds of people who receive a regulation from the very top of the organization and summarize the information that seems to have been certified by this. I think there are these two ways. If you mix these two ways, it will be a little confusing. I felt that the areas of expertise of everyone at this conference were largely divided into these two.

I just wrote a little about my idea in the chat section, but (1) is an official almost complete form, and (1) is a completed form that posts the information that this regulation can be cleared with this, as a kind of endorsement.

(2) requires a lot of trial and error in each organization to reach (1). The trial and error is carried out both in the administrative organization and in the companies in private sector. However, one of the characteristics of Japanese organization is that when you try to do this by trial and error, you have to reassure your boss for the time being, and if you use this technology, there is at least no risk, such as "There is a grep command. It seems that you can search for sentences with other organization. However, your boss is worried that it will be dangerous if the grep command deletes all the sentences." In the past, there were magazines and the like to show that this is not the case, but now there are very few of them, so they are posted to satisfy it, and there is an atmosphere of being decent and proper and technologically neutral and doing it properly. If there is this, I think it can be used in organization as the beginning of trial and error. organization

Then, the result of trial and error will be written in the repository again. Then, other organization will be able to see it and do more new trial and error. The current one is (2), but if this is repeated, it will be raised to a level that can clear the existing regulation at the end, so, the article of (1) will be created by the committee of Digital Agency or others, and the technical guarantee that (1) is based on the results of technical work carried out in many technical repositories of (2) will be taken in (2), and if it is approved at the end, (1) will be shorter, but I think that (1) and (2) will be the same system, and (1) and (2) can be categorized, Dr. Nakamura said in the chat comment. I think there is a way to do this, or perhaps it is better to separate them because (2) is a media view or an HTML Microsoft document like what Noboru mentioned earlier, and (1) is a little more administrative "Kasumigaseki Mandala".

In summary, I thought that it would be good to consider it in two ways: (1) change the direction of regulation, and (2) allow trial and error to increase technical accumulation for that purpose.

That is all.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.
Regarding 2, in the sense of linking the activities of consortiums in each industry, the committee will consider how to challenge the possibility of consortiums and industries as a group. Then, there will be discussions on where to get development research funds from, and what to do with human resources and technology. I think that it will be related to how to create a relationship with private sector, which is a consortium, that the Secretariat came up with, because we would like to discuss how to include it in the general framework of national policy and how to tackle it as an industry.

Is there anything else from the members?
Mr. Saito, please.

Saito, Member : Just for your reference. I have been in the world of control for a long time. Basically, this is for your reference, so please listen. In the world of control, we, control and protection of control systems, were separated. In the digital age, when we came, we talked about changing various analog to digital. When it comes to human life, it is said to be digital, so it can be stopped even if it runs away. For example, if a motor is always running, it will be turned off. If a cable car with people on board falls down, it will be useless, so it will be forcibly braked no matter what. We made it hard.

In regulatory reform, there will probably be another debate on what to do with the last place as a system that is related to human life, not only the current digital place, but also what kind of system and mechanism should be put in place. From that perspective, the regulation authorities have talked about various things like AsIs, but one thing is that it is better to think about what kind of system should be used as a system rather than making everything digital.

In addition, the degree of significance varies depending on what is used. Therefore, even if the technology is the same, depending on the level of use, depending on the significance of use, there is a sense of level, and it is built up around it, as I said, the protection system, and what to do with the surrounding systems will be discussed separately. Therefore, I think that discussions on how to change the current AsIs for social implementation should be considered for each system and each field on which each regulation depends. This is introduced to you for reference.

That's all.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.

The industry, which has a lot of knowledge and experience, will provide and share information to other industries. I think the secretariat recognizes that this is very important for a catalog. Thank you very much.

Is there anything else?
Well, it doesn't seem to be, so if so far, Suga san, is there anything you'd like to respond to?

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you very much.

Since you pointed out many points, I would like to recognize all the points. However, as you said to decide quickly, I would like you to start creating the mechanism of (2) as proposed by the members on a trial basis. Please start creating it, and while writing specific articles with the cooperation of the members of Kawabata, we will discuss that it is meaningless unless we do this. However, we said that we should decide on the editorial policy firmly when we start to run, so I would like to make a proposal on the editorial policy in this way next time.

In addition, as Mr. Kyuma mentioned, I believe it is very important what the authorities in regulation want to do and at what level they want to do it, and what is the point of hesitation about the introduction of technology. When recruiting digital completion technology for the course this time, I thoroughly interviewed the authorities who are conducting the course and examination about the pain points and reflected them. We are currently conducting trials in each field, and although it is still in progress, I would like to introduce examples of concerns about these fields.

Also, some members said that they would be able to talk about this. For example, I thought it would be important for me to learn what is currently being said overseas, including the forefront of governance, from discovery control to prevention control, from Member Ogawa. Also, Member Ogino told me about overseas trends, if necessary. I would like to discuss this as part of the agenda.

It's more than a rush.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.

I believe that the Secretariat will probably ask all the members of the Council, so I hope that you will kindly agree to this.

So, that's all for today's agenda. Please tell us about the next committee and others from the secretariat.

Secretariat (Suga) : The Committee is scheduled to be held about once a month, and the next meeting will be held in late October or early November. After this, the Secretariat will ask each member of the Committee about their schedule.

Regarding today's proceedings, we would like to announce it on the website of Digi-Cho after the secretariat asks all attendees to confirm the draft minutes at a later date.

Also, if you do not have any particular objection to today's materials, I would like to make all of them available on the website of the Digi-cho Digital Rincho.

Thank you very much for your fruitful discussion today.

Ezaki Chairman : Thank you very much.
With that said, I would like to close today's meeting.

We would like to receive various opinions and suggestions from you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your hard work.