Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.
If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group (twenty fourth)

Overview

  • Date and Time: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 (2023) from 13:00 to 15:30
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Progress of "Technology-based regulatory reform" and how to proceed for the time being
      2. About the Digital Marketplace
      3. About the Carrier Procedure Services Task Force
      4. Age of AI's Approach to Accident Liability
      5. About Base Registries and Institutional Issue
      6. Exchange of opinions
    3. Adjournment

Materials

Minutes, etc.

Date

Wednesday, September 20, 2023 (2023), from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Location

Held online

Members present

Chairman

  • ISHIKAWA Akimasa (Senior Vice Minister of Digital)

Members

  • Junji Annen (Attorney-at-law, Professor of the Graduate School of Law
  • Tatsuhiko Inadani (Professor, Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University)
  • IWAMURA Arihiro (Managing Director, Japan Business Federation)
  • Takafumi Ochiai (Attorney at law, Atsumi & Sakai, Foreign Law Joint Enterprise)
  • Katsuya Uenoyama (President of PKSHA Technology, Inc.)
  • Masakazu Masushima (Attorney-at-Law, Mori Hamada & Matsumoto)

Minutes

Secretariat (Harada): Senior Vice-Minister Now that it is time, I would like to begin. I would like to open the twenty fourth session of the "Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group."

Again, members are invited to participate online.

With regard to the attendance status of the members today, I have heard that Mr. Sugawara will be absent due to personal reasons, and Mr. Uenoyama and Mr. Ochiai will be leaving the room during the meeting.
Then, before we begin the proceedings, I would like to have an address by Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister ISHIKAWA Akimasa, who will be newly appointed as Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister and will serve as the Chair of this Working Group. Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister, please.

Senior Vice-Minister ISHIKAWA Digital: Thank you, . I am ISHIKAWA Akimasa, Chair of this Working Group, and I was appointed as Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister for Digital Affairs in the recently launched second reshuffled Cabinet of Prime Minister Kishida. Nice to meet you.

At today's working group meeting, we will discuss five topics. First, we will discuss "Progress and Immediate Approaches to' Technology-based regulatory reform.'" In the near future, we plan to release the Technology Map and Technology Catalog, and we will start on-site validation projects for the Technology validation Project. Based on today's discussions, we will make efforts to provide information that is convenient and highly usable.

Next, regarding the "Digital Marketplace," we will start a demonstration of the service catalog site by the end of October to confirm the experience of use by business operators and administrative staff. Based on today's discussion, we will proceed with the institutional arrangement by the end of the year, and we will proceed with the environmental improvement that will be fully utilized for IT procurement next fiscal year.

Next, with regard to the "Business Operator Procedure Service Task Force," based on today's discussion and future surveys on administrative procedure systems by the Cabinet Office and each Ministry, we will proceed with the formulation of an improvement plan and organize the ideal way and experience of the administrative procedure system for business operators.
Next is "age of AI's Approach to Accident Liability." Looking at the implementation of automated driving vehicles, it is important for relevant ministries and agencies to start discussions in cooperation on the approach to accident liability, and we would like to accelerate the discussions going forward.

The last is "Base Registry and Institutional Issue." We would like you to discuss "Data Governance under the New information linkages Mechanism" and "Development of the Base Registry and the Number System for Address, Location, and Building Information." We would like to work closely with related organizations and consider a roadmap for the development of the Base Registry by the end of this year.

That's all for today. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Harada): Senior Vice-Minister .

Then, I would like to start today's proceedings. I would like to ask Vice Chairman Annen to proceed with the proceedings after that. Mr. Annen, Vice-Chairman, please.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. . I would like to ask the Mayor of Niiza for your guidance in various areas. Thank you very much.

First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Suga to explain the first agenda item, "Progress of' Technology-based regulatory reform' and how to proceed for the time being." Mr. Suga, please.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your visit to I would like to explain in accordance with the materials of "Progress of' Technology-based regulatory reform' and how to proceed in the near future."

Page 3 is the content of today's report. It is a report on the content of the discussions at the latest sixth meeting of the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee. At first, I said that the Technology validation project would be implemented in three phases from the first. However, all of them have been publicly offered. That is the report.

The second is the style of Technology Map. As you discussed about the vertical axis and the horizontal axis last time, we have decided to proceed with this plan.

Third, when developing the Technology Catalog in conjunction with the Map, we decided to enrich the items related to Cyber security. Based on the enriched items, we will sequentially invite applications for catalogs, and report on the types of catalogs to be promoted.

Finally, we have started operating the consortium, and we would like to hold a kick-off event called RegTechDay, so I would like to report on it.

Page 6 is the type of Technology validation Project and the time of public offering. It is a very colorful material, but the first is red, the second is blue, and the third is yellow. We have already made arrangements for ministries and agencies to share all the cars, and by August, we had held a public offering of companies to implement validation together for each type. Thankfully, Oita prefecture will participate in validation together, and we have been working with them, including detailed specifications.

From page 7, the first, second, and third proposals are posted for review. Regarding the Technology validation, after this, the business operators and the ministries and agencies responsible for each provision will reach a specific agreement on where, what technology, and how to conduct the validation. We will enter the validation regulation as needed, so we will be submerged for a while, but I would like to make a report when the validation is over.

Next, from page 14, I would like to talk about Technology Map. Last time, I said that I would like to make the map structure so that you can get a bird' s-eye view of the whole according to the large structure of regulation. On the next page, I have organized the "basic structure of regulation." Every regulation has a regulation purpose and some kind of management target. First, the "data acquirer" acquires and transmits information about the management target. For example, it acquires and transmits information that the structure is cracked or rusted. Next, the "decision-maker" shown in red receives the information and confirms and determines whether or not the situation is serious. For example, whether or not the cracking or rusting is a serious situation that could lead to the collapse of bridges if left unchecked. The results of the judgment are transmitted as information to the next "response actor." The response actor takes specific measures such as starting repairs or banning entry to the site. Many regulation have this structure. Furthermore, on page 16, with regard to the description ratio in the text, if we put the structure I just explained to the side, the description ratio of the management target, what kind of data is required to be acquired about it, and who is required to judge whether or not it is serious is high in every regulation, and it has become clear that it can be read or inferred from the text. On the other hand, it is difficult to read the text as it is because who makes the judgment and what they do is left to the experts on the ground.

Based on the structure and situation of regulation as described above, as I reported last time, on the next page, we would like to place the processes of acquiring, judging, responding, and responding to data on the horizontal axis of Technology Map, excluding the management targets.

In addition, on page 18, on the vertical axis, I have come to the conclusion that if we continue to classify the management targets that I omitted earlier and categorize them by the data content necessary to manage the management targets, we can list various elements of regulation very cleanly.

What is written as "Vertical Axis Pattern 1" in the revised proposal is a proposal that arranges the vertical axis in the form of a categorization of the management targets and the data content necessary for management by hanging them from the judgment content of what kind of judgment is required. In addition, as "Vertical Axis Pattern 2," the Committee pointed out that it would be better to maintain the plan of classifying and organizing the management targets by linking them to the regulations on paper and in-person processes typology so that regulation can be found from the keywords of regulation such as the seven preceding items that Digi-in has been working on. For the time being, we would like to publish a map in which the vertical axes of these two patterns coexist.

On page 19, the vertical axis and the horizontal axis have been decided, and although the technologies are quite grouped, if we map the technologies that can be supported, it will be roughly like this. We are mapping the technologies that we know at the present time, including the technologies that were publicly offered by RFI.

Page 20 is Pattern 2. The vertical axis changes a little, and the shape of the mapping changes a little accordingly. There may be a possibility that the design and format will be changed a little when it is announced, but I have said that the first edition of Technology Map will be announced around this summer, and since we are obliged to announce it based on law, we would like to upload it to the Digi-cho website in the form of Patterns 1 and 2.

Pages 21 and 22 are more detailed Technology Map, which are too detailed to be listed on paper, so I would like to avoid showing it as a map as it is. However, I don't think it is a problem that such a rich ecosystem is woven as it is when you collect information on the Internet, so I would like to post it on the Internet so that you can refer to it with this granularity.

That's all about Technology Map. Next is the technology catalog.

Page 25 is the entire process of maintaining the Technology Catalog. On page 26, the items to be included in the Technology Catalog were decided once, and we were about to start soliciting catalogues in various fields. At that time, many people pointed out that we should consider responses to Cyber security and Supply Chain Risk Management a little further. Regarding the information on products and services to be included in the Technology Catalog, we do not have the capacity or resources to confirm all of it in Digital Agency. Therefore, we have at least confirmed the existence of this service. At the very least, we have made a minimum confirmation of the existence of this service. Based on this confirmation, we have focused on prompt reporting. We will continue to list the proposed technologies and services in the catalog, and write a disclaimer in the agreement that Digital Agency cannot be held responsible for the risks associated with the use of the listed technologies. On the other hand, the catalog will be listed on the Digi-cho website as information related to Technology Map, which is required by law. Therefore, we should assume the existence of people who trust it and access it to some extent. In order to ensure a minimum level of trust and improve the information to be provided, we will take the following two additional measures.

First, we would like to set up a Technology Catalog Operation Task Force within the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee, and before the disclosure of the technology catalog, we would like to have a process in which the entire Task Force once checks various input information applied by companies. As for the members of the Task Force, I believe there is a risk that companies will be too aggressive in asking us to include them in the catalog, so we would like to keep the members private the moment we set up the Task Force. On the other hand, based on the points pointed out by the Committee, we would like to make the members public after the fact so that we can confirm later that the members have made a solid decision with integrity.

Second, I would like to improve the items to be entered in the catalog. With regard to the Supply Chain Risk Management of cyber security and software, first of all, with regard to the protection of personal data and other handled data, including trade secrets, I would like to add the following matters to be confirmed. Where is the data stored? Are measures such as encryption firmly taken? What is the jurisdiction in case of conflict? What is the governing law?

Also, what are the provisions for compensation in the terms and conditions? I would like to add that we should make a list of responses in the event of a risk, such as whether or not we will run away just because we do not have a base in Japan in the event of damage, or whether or not we are a company with a collateral liability property.

I would like to add items to check the Supply Chain Risk Management of software, including the characteristics of software and whether or not it is critical software.

From page 27, although it will be detailed, the basic policy is to add specific items. The basic policy is not to do anything special or creative. The latest wisdom compiled by global or Japanese cutting-edge people is quoted as it is. On the other hand, ease of input by applicants is also important, so we have narrowed down to the minimum necessary items that people who provide products will be able to answer. We would like to ask questions in as comprehensive a manner as possible, and we will use a checklist method to confirm whether it corresponds to the definition of important software issued by NIST in the United States and whether it conforms to the standards presented as precautions for use.

On pages 28-31, you will be asked to confirm whether this is critical software.

And on page 32, the question is, are you following the 11 minimum standards for software validation?

Based on the above, on page 33, I would like to add this question item after confirming that there are no omissions as a whole.

The above is an additional response regarding software Supply Chain Risk Management, etc., and based on that, we would like to start the second technical catalog public offering. We would like to add the questions on security, which I mentioned earlier, to the questions on visiting inspection and public inspection that were originally prepared for the next public offering, and submit it to the public offering by the end of September. In addition, following the visiting inspection and public inspection, we would like to steadily develop the catalog in advance for provision, which does not require technical validation. A red frame is attached to "provision, which does not require technical validation" on page 35, but the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation say that most provision do not require technical validation, so we will develop the catalog in advance for the approximately 8,600, which do not require technical, out of the approximately 10,000 provision. validation

On page 36, regarding the public offering of catalogs, I have just organized the vertical axis and the horizontal axis on the map, but we will make it into a large group according to the classification of management targets on the vertical axis, and we will submit it to the public offering in order.

Following the on-site viewing, I would like to publish the third category. It is a category in which wearable devices and real-time call video are shared to replace regulation, where it is said that management of business sites and confirmation of business conditions should be carried out by field surveys.

In addition, we are using cameras, AI, and robots to replace regulation, which we say should be checked for aging degradation and safety measures by visual inspection and surveillance.

In addition, regarding outdoor environments in a wide area, we would like to use drones and the like to substitute for them, including understanding the damage. We would like to start creating recruitment items for the catalog by inviting applications for these as the next group.

As described above, if you put the catalog public offering type on the map, you will be soliciting technologies around here, so if you are interested, please take a look at it.

I would like to go to the start of the operation of the consortium on page 42. Of course, Technology Map and the catalog will be developed in Digital Agency, but at the same time, I would like to see the technology holding organizations, the ministries and agencies in charge of regulation, and the organizations in regulation, which are related stakeholders, shorten their distances more, and have an organic conversation about whether such technology has come out and can be used. I would like to slowly start the consortium with the people surrounding RegTech.

Page 44 shows the roles we expect the consortium to play. On page 45, the consortium has actually started operating quietly. It opened a community on Slack on August 4, and thankfully, more than 100 people have already registered. In the future, we hope to increase the number of participants through study meetings and events at the consortium, and as the first kick-off event, we would like to hold an event called "RegTechDay" on October 27, 2023, next month, with the aim of deepening understanding of the regulations on paper and in-person processes review using technology while reporting on the progress so far. We plan to hold the event online. We would like to make it an event in which people can listen to what kind of regulation we are reviewing, how we will do the Technology validation, and what the problems of the regulation authorities are. We would like the members of the Working Group to cooperate with this event.

On page 47, we also include an updated version of the consortium's activity schedule with specific dates.

That is the report of the consortium. Finally, the overall schedule. Technology Map will be the rate-limiting step. Technology Map will be announced by Digital Agency as a legal duty, so we will steadily invite applications for the technology catalog and enrich it accordingly. Then, behind the scenes, we will conduct the technology validation one by one in three phases. As soon as the results are available, we will reform regulation and publish the corresponding technologies in the catalog. In between, we will plan the events of the consortium in the form of symposiums and briefing sessions in order to deepen your understanding of RegTech's moves and gather related parties.
That's all. Thank you very much.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. Thank you very much.

If you have any comments or questions about the explanation just given, please let us know.

Mr. Suga, Regarding Technology Map's Pattern 1 and Pattern 2, Pattern 2 is more like a legal side, or a way of sorting in accordance with the conventional wording of law.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your visit to That's exactly the case.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. Pattern 1 is rather machine-friendly. Of course, if we don't write both of them now, the regulation side will be in trouble even if they do something completely different from the conventional wisdom. That's true, but I think that in time, the way law is written will be more machine-friendly. In other words, I somehow feel that the outlook is that it will be more like Pattern 1 in the long run. What do you think, Counselor Suga?

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your visit to That is a very deep suggestion. As the digitalization Study Team of the Legal Affairs Department reports to the Working Group from time to time, there is a big aim to make law itself machine-readable in the end, and to make it so that law does not have to be updated manually every time. Technology Map is also making it to help us do that. As you said at that time, Pattern 1 is more stable, or the text of the regulation article is only a part of what we want to see done, as we found out from the results of the analysis earlier. Therefore, Pattern 1, which classifies what we want to see done, is more future-oriented, universal, and versatile than the keyword extraction of the current regulation.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. . Member Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: This is Inadani Thank you.

As I believe it is related to what Dr. Annen just said, the structure of regulation, or what it has been doing in the end, is very clear, as I was summarized last time, and I believe it has been further refined this time. I believe that the structure and function of regulation are becoming clear, which is a very correct direction to aim for. My frank impression is that it is a very remarkable achievement. First of all, I would like to make a point.

I would like to ask one question and one comment. Regarding the first question, I believe that it is a very important theme for the entire Working Group to start from what can be done, and I think it is a good direction to start from what can be started without Technical validation, but on the other hand, if there are characteristics of those classified as those that do not require Technical validation, I would like to know about them. In other words, I did not know what characteristics there are, such as whether they are not related to risk or accuracy. I would like to ask about that.

I would like to make another comment. As I heard from you today, I understand that you are planning a dynamic cycle in which various technologies may be used in private sector in the future, the method of technology validation will be established to some extent, and this will affect the entire Technology Map, and the entire regulation structure will change rapidly.

In that case, it will be extremely important to develop a multi-stakeholder hub as we did today, so I am very encouraged that development has begun here, and I would like you to proceed further. In addition, I believe that risks will inevitably occur somewhere. I believe that this issue is probably related to another topic on today's agenda, but I understand that this Technology Map project is nothing other than promoting agile governance. Therefore, when risks occur, if you deepen the discussion on what kind of liability law should be in the future, and whether the way of responsibility distribution should promote the utilization of Technology Map and the technology catalog, I think it can be reflected well in the point of what the liability law should be. In this way, I thought that it would be a great form as a whole by promoting it while looking at both the promotion of the project and the development of the liability law, so I would like you to discuss that.

That's all from me.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. , Member of the Committee, to make a statement before Mr. Hitoshi Suga, Counselor, responds. Next, Mr. Uenoyama, Member of the Committee, please.

Uenoyama Member: Thank you.

It is very advanced and I am looking forward to it. However, I have two software-related points. First, I think the format definition of the technical catalog is quite important. Of course, I think the Supply Chain Risk Management item has been discussed, but I think it is extremely important to make a good design on whether to upload it as a free description or not.

The reason is that if you make it a free description, it may be written excessively attractively and may actually be different. On the other hand, if you ask to include this item too strictly, the number of input items will become several hundred and no one will be able to enter it. Therefore, I believe that it will be extremely important in the future to find input items with an appropriate granularity at the time of catalog registration, and I would like to ask your thoughts on this matter.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your visit to catalog itself have been completely standardized. This time, I would like to add some questions in the security part.

Uenoyama Member: Do you mean that I should define the items relatively?

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your visit to Well, while there are mainly yes and no answers, there are also some columns for free descriptions.

Uenoyama Member: Basically, we should decide the items so that they are not too many.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your visit to Yes. I would like to keep some free descriptions, but I would like to make it so that I can make a judgment without them as much as possible. We should consider not to raise the bar too much by expanding the items for voluntary description to some extent, and by doing so, we should be able to make it possible to make a decision unless all the items are filled in.

Uenoyama Member: I see. Then there might be no problem.

The second one may not be so applicable if you are dealing with such a problem, but I would like to share it because I came up with an idea to solve the problem. There are quite a few free description columns, aren't there? I'm sorry to talk about AI all of a sudden, but generative AI is very good at extracting entities from such free descriptions, for example, extracting items from them. So, you can create such a thing quite easily, so you can give it a lot of freedom when you enter it, and you can do it without hassle. On the other hand, if you add a process in which generative AI runs once to form a structure, it will be easier to enter and user-friendly, and you want to create a case using generative AI in one digital transmission, so I thought it would be a world-leading case all of a sudden, so I would like to share it.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. squares, but I should fill out the form by checking or not checking. Thank you very much.

Then, Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Each time I saw it, the content was even more amazing, so I thought it was becoming more like a digital Great Wall. However, I think this is being advanced with due consideration to visual readability and structuring, so I thought it would be a completely different form from the accumulation of analog.

I think it has become extremely wonderful, but in terms of what we will do in the future, even if there is a great deal of enthusiasm when launching various systems for the first time, I think that when they are updated, it will become a flow of work, whether good or bad. I hope that you have made a good system that can be used as a system with enthusiasm, so I thought that would be a really important point.

Another point is the relationship between data and AI. As Mr. Uenoyama mentioned earlier, regardless of whether it should be a kind of base registry or not, I think it is an information asset that serves as the base of the country. If it is connected to data strategies and mapping of the existence of data, I think it will lead to the fusion of various initiatives in the digital dialogue. If such a thing has been established as a result, I think it will be discussed that it has been properly developed from the overseas perspective. I thought it might be one of the contents of the IAP in DFFT and other countries, and it might be a material that can be brought from Japan. In that sense, if we create a connection with data, I think we can create one thing that can be brought to international discussions.

In addition, we are also conducting the DFFT AI Process in relation to Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and I think the AI side is also talking about developing rules or guidelines. In particular, in relation to the content considered in the judgment function of the Pattern 2 process, I think it would be good if we could understand that the entire country is establishing guidance and using it. I think it would lead to the thorough development of overall digital strategies, and in fact, even if the AI guidance itself is not compulsory, I think we are trying to summarize the content that should be used with care, and I am also participating in the discussion on the Hiroshima side, and I think it has such a nature, so I thought it would be good if we could cooperate on that.

On the other hand, there are already various discussions in the latter part, so I would like you to consider cooperation with various discussions while making use of the completed discussions as much as possible, so that you can use them well with a minimum, and consider joining them.
That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. . Mr. Iwamura, please.

Member of Iwamura: Thank you, Thank you.

Looking at pages 19 and 20 of today's handout, I felt that the whole picture would be very easy to understand if you made a visualization. There are quite a few voices saying that there are not enough people at the workplace of companies, and on the other hand, we have to keep working hours firmly. Therefore, I would like to ask you to proceed with the implementation as a whole for the parts that can be replaced by machines and technology. In addition, I think there will be new markets created by utilizing technology to fulfill the purpose of the regulation, so I would like to ask you to advance this initiative.

I would like to ask two questions from the perspective of startups. First of all, I would like to know the number of applications from startups for the first public offering and how they responded to the startups they cooperated with. I heard from startups that there was no reaction from Digital Agency after that, so I would like to know that point.

Second, I would like to ask about the treatment of the information submitted by startups. In order to include our products and services in the catalog, is it necessary to resubmit the information, including security information, from zero? I believe that there are various information already provided, but do you mean that you will request the submission of the same information again in the future? I would like to ask these two questions.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. Thank you very much.

Then, Counselor Suga, I would appreciate it if you could answer mainly your questions.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your visit to Thank you for your interest.
First of all, Dr. Inadani would like to ask about the characteristics of things that do not require validation. Going back to page 35, there are actually almost no types that do not require validation at all. If you look closely, only some of the weather information is white in the two columns on the left. If you abstract it, it may be important as information, but I think there are many things that are not immediately related to human life.

Conversely, in this data type, it is difficult to read the degree of necessity of validation, or it is difficult to find the law that validation must be made because this information is important or difficult, so I was looking at this table.

I think you are right that it should lead to agile governance.

Professor Uenoyama's idea of using AI to extract entities in the catalog format is really interesting. Our problem is that we want to increase the number of questions, including the question about security risk, but it is a burden for those who fill out the format. In particular, I thought that start-ups would read the necessary items and make a catalog on their own, so I think Professor Uenoyama taught us the next milestone last time, and I hope we can evolve with such a perspective.

In addition, Dr. Ochiai told us how to rotate with heat quantity, which I believe is also important. What the catalogs and maps are made for is that we would like to realize that people can actually use the technology in the area where regulation is newly unlocked and connect to procurement, so we will steadily produce the results first. I hope that the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation will increase the number of experiences in which people can use the catalogs unexpectedly or learn about technical areas they did not know through the map.

In addition, it is not until we abstract and organize all of regulation that we can understand, for better or worse, that it is all data. I think the vertical axis of the map is data labeling. It can be said that it is a list of facts about what and what kind of information can be obtained to confirm when we are trying to maintain some kind of safety. I would like to deepen consideration by being aware of how to use such a map as an information asset in the future, for example, how to proceed to the next step of further rationalizing regulation.

Mr. Iwamura asked me a question about startups. I'm sorry, but I think there are a lot of parts where we don't have enough reactions. Because we have sent out a lot of public appeals so far, and we have sent out an RFI to ask what kind of technical areas we have in the first place. We have also sent out a public appeal for digital completion for tests and lectures to ask for catalogs in advance. The results are now posted on the Digi-Cho website as a provisional catalog, but I think it is highly possible that it does not necessarily lead to procurement. In the future, we will focus on what applicants think of as reactions, and I would like to increase contact with you through the RegTech Consortium to fill the gap.

In response to the suggestion from Mr. Iwamura that the start-up has to repeat the procedure all over again, it depends on which procedure you are referring to, but I would like to make use of the information in the catalog as much as possible, and I will visit the places where I added the risk of security once more for the training and examination, but in general, I would like to make use of what I have already received as much as possible.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Next, on the second item on the agenda, Mr. Yoshida, Planning Officer, will give an explanation on "Digital Marketplace."

Mr. Yoshida: When I talk about the system architecture of the first member in .

This digital marketplace is an initiative to introduce a new public procurement mechanism and procurement method. Conventionally, as shown in the figure on the left side of page 2, when public institutions make a system procurement, there have been many cases of system procurement made by tailor-made companies. We have created so-called procurement specifications, and have received proposals and bids from various companies. We have made a procurement based on a comprehensive evaluation of these two.

In this case, it takes a very long time, and it is very troublesome for both public authorities and the company proposing it. In some cases, it takes only about half a year to complete the procurement procedure.

On the other hand, at present, there are many packages of cloud service, mainly software services using SaaS, for which the purpose of use is determined to some extent. If such packages are cataloged and posted on the website, and public authorities can select those that match the specifications of procurement and procurement them, in terms of the time and effort of procurement, the number of public authorities and companies will decrease, and they will be selected in a highly transparent manner by being posted on the catalog site of the marketplace. By doing so, in a sense, small and medium-sized vendors and new entrants such as start-ups will increase, and we are working to advance such initiatives.

On page 3, rather than making a new original Japanese idea, it has already been launched in the UK since 2014. Originally, the UK was an oligopolistic market in which 18 companies accounted for 80% of procurement in 2009. However, by introducing this digital marketplace, more than 90% of registered vendors have become small and medium-sized startups, including those in rural areas. In terms of procurement value, nearly 40% of registered vendors have become such players in 2021. In the map below, the left side is actually plotted in small yellow, but this is the number of vendors participating in procurement, and if you look at the figure for 2018 on the right, you can see that vendors registered in various area are distributed from rural areas. In this way, we believe it will contribute to expanding the number of vendors entering the market.

Last year, we held workshops and other events to discuss how we would introduce this. In this workshop, we held a workshop with various stakeholders, including not only central government agencies but also people from local government, vendors such as large companies, foreign cloud vendors, and small and medium-sized startups. At the end of last fiscal year, we compiled a report, in which we positioned our future digital marketplace initiatives.

This time, what we are considering to be the target of procurement in this digital marketplace is cloud software SaaS, which I mentioned earlier. In many cases, SaaS is sold not only by direct sales, but also by a sales company in the form of installation support through partner companies, etc., so we are considering a mechanism to enable procurement of both.

In terms of the actual procurement process, first of all, the software company, the sales company, and Digital Agency will conclude a basic agreement, which is called a framework agreement, and check whether they have sufficient qualifications for the actual procurement. After that, we are thinking of having each company register their services on the catalog site. public authorities will conduct a search on the contents of the registered services. They will narrow down the service specifications according to their own procurement specifications, and the narrowed down ones will be signed as individual contracts.

In this search, if you can search at random and make a procurement based on appropriate search results, it will harm the fairness of the procurement. Therefore, we are thinking of securing the fairness here by adding evidence of what conditions were used to narrow down the search results and how the test results were obtained.

For the actual search, first of all, you will search for software. In Digital Agency, we are working on various policy axes such as disaster risk management DX and Digital Garden City, and in response, there are SaaS used by local government and others, so you will select a policy tag and a software function tag for what purpose it will be used. In addition, when we do system procurement, there are detailed check items such as security authentication, what kind of support we provide, and SLA, so you will also check these boxes.

In addition, if the software is narrowed down, in some cases it is sold directly, and in other cases it is sold by a sales company, so we will look at the services provided by those people and narrow down where to buy it from. We will narrow down the software and the customers in two steps.

By introducing the Digital Marketplace in this way, as I mentioned earlier, I believe that the burden of procurement will be reduced for both the administrative side and the IT vendor side.

In addition, it will be more transparent, and it will be easier for small and medium-sized startups to enter the market. As I said earlier, we have been building core administrative systems by tailoring them, but I think it will be an advantage that SaaS can introduce them right away.

As for the future schedule, in mid-October, we will first open a demonstration site for the alpha version of the Digital Marketplace. At this stage, we are thinking of having business operators register their services. After that, when the service has been provided to some extent, we will fully open the site for the general public and public authorities around November. Based on this, we will conduct a user testing in December, and we will use the feedback from the site for the next fiscal year's catalog site renovation.

In addition, in advancing this, due to the accounting system, it is necessary to sort out with Ministry of Finance how we can sort out the procurement by searching and selecting as I mentioned earlier, so I would like to sort out the direction first by the end of the year.

In addition, we would like to have it used not only by the national government but also by local government, so we would like to organize the institutional interpretation of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications going forward. In addition, we would like to proceed with such institutional arrangement and renovation based on the demonstration of the catalog site, and from the second half of next fiscal year, we would like to be able to use this to create procurement.

That's all for now.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. Thank you very much.

Then, if you have any questions or opinions about the explanation just now, please let me know.

Mr. Iwamura, please.

Member of Iwamura: Thank you, Thank you.

By posting service information on the DMP catalog site, the Ministry expects that it will lead to the efficient procurement of high-level services through the sharing of various information.

On the other hand, from the perspective of private sector, which accesses DMP, we would like to open the door to startups. The utilization of startups in public procurement is included in the government's five year plan, and I would like to see such an engine started.

We would like to ask you to evaluate the additional points for J-Startup and J-Startup area, and to actively adopt the technologies listed in Technology Map at the same time.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. . Member Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: This is Inadani Thank you very much for your very easy-to-understand explanation. It seems that the UK is doing very well and is very active, so I thought that if Japan does well, it will go in a very good direction.

I believe you have already thought about it, but I would like to make comments or ask questions about the procurement process. Based on your explanation, I feel that whether or not this will work well depends on the granularity of the tags used for business operator searches. In particular, if it is said that if a specific tag is attached, only a specific site will be tagged, I feel that there is a possibility that problems may arise in the fairness of procurement. Therefore, I would like to ask you to try various ways to adjust the way of attaching the tag to maintain the competitive state.

Another point is that I believe there was a similar story somewhere in the UK. At that time, in the UK, for example, competition law, or criminal law, which is related to bribery, etc., I am somewhat interested in what kind of discussion was made about this procurement in such a legal field. If you know about it, I would like to know about it.

That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. . I would like to ask all the members to go through your remarks before returning them.

Dr. Masujima, please.

Member: Thank you.
As for the system, we will start with the alpha version in an innovative form for the whole system and go to the actual operation, so I feel that the testing of the system side can be done to some extent. When controlling the risks arising from the relationship with external players, it is limited by the system and the contract. I have heard that framework agreements have a little track record in construction, but IT procurement may not have done so much. I feel that what items should be specified and under what conditions needs to be a certain iteration, just like the system. Perhaps if you show me an example from the UK and start by copying the text of the UK, you can control the risks related to the contract because you can do it from the point where you have absorbed some know-how. In any case, I think it is good to think that there are both the system and the text of the contract in the iteration process.

Regarding individual contracts, for example, in SaaS, the system has already been decided, so I think there are terms of use depending on it. I think that we will agree to the terms of use, but on the other hand, I wonder if we should have an image that there is an agreement with something added on the premise that it will be provided to public organizations such as the government, and that is how we call it an individual contract. If the government is like this or that, it does not match SaaS at all, so I thought it would be important to tell us the image of this area in order to make it easier for people such as startups to actually release products, so I would like to ask you.

That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Member of Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much. We are also making good progress, and I would like you to proceed.

I would like to make a few comments. Regarding the contract that Mr. Masashima just mentioned, I thought that when the Fair Trade Commission was considering whether it is important to make it possible for business operators to use the things they usually use, that was what I heard. In the case of SaaS, if the government takes special measures, it may not be necessary to sell the goods. On the other hand, I thought that the basic contract may include a minimum request. I believe that there are minimum requirements for the country and local governments, while making the best use of the perspective of the company. I hope that the contract will be maintained well from both perspectives.

Another point is a story from the United Kingdom. Originally, the United Kingdom government was not a vendor lock-in to some extent, but I heard that it had become an oligopolistic market. I think that start-ups are also like that, but I think that there are more and more local companies in area who are bidding. I think that if we are not aware of the need to take measures, there is a question of what to do in terms of competition law. However, there are some parts where it is difficult to talk about vendor lock-in only in terms of competition law. I think that there are some parts that we can learn from the United Kingdom that there is a possibility that we can actually diversify by being quite aware of how to diversify while finding incentives for business operators. I think that this is a field that cannot necessarily be solved by hard law alone, but nevertheless, I would like you to connect the development of a competitive environment in a broad sense to a form that opens the door widely.

That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Mr. Yoshida, if you have any views at this point, please let me know.

Mr. Yoshida: When I talk about the system architecture of the first member in Thank you.

As Professor Ochiai pointed out, we will open the door to the first start-ups, and as for the participation of a wide range of vendors, this system will be established for start-up associations and the software industry, so we would like to promote a wide range of interest by holding explanatory meetings.

In addition, Dr. Inadani talked about the granularity of tags. As you said, if you want to attach tags anywhere, there will be people who want to attach all the tags. So, we will limit the number of tags to some extent, and we will write down in the terms of use that you should attach tags that really apply to you.

I do not know if there was any discussion on competition law or criminal law, but I believe that in public authorities, before the creation of such a digital marketplace in the United Kingdom, there were many places where the existence of accessible vendors themselves was not known. On the contrary, I believe that there is a tendency to rely on specific vendors, and I believe that visualization of information on such vendors will enable us to consider a wider range of vendors or to call on them.

Dr. Masushima's point that it is necessary to organize the two systems and contracts so that they function properly is exactly correct. The framework agreement will be worked out from now on, but as you said, the UK framework agreement is one of the things that will be helpful, and I would like to refer to this as I proceed.

The term "individual contract" refers to an individual contract to distinguish it from a basic contract. In fact, an individual contract refers to the act of procurement and ordering act of a general public procurement, and I do not believe that the purpose of the individual contract is to request an additional contract because it is a public contract for a SaaS in private sector. Originally, after referring to the terms of use, etc., we basically think that we would like you to conclude a contract by ordering what suits your service needs. Therefore, I believe that some companies will prepare such a package for public services, but at present, we are not particularly thinking about creating something like that.

That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Next, I would like to move on to the third agenda item, "On the Business Procedures Service Task Force." The Ministry of Justice is participating in this as a related government agency. Please let Mr. Yoshida, Director of Planning, explain this agenda item as well.

Mr. Yoshida: When I talk about the system architecture of the first member in Business Operator Task Force, I believe that Digital Agency's efforts so far have been centered on how to make administrative procedures for individuals and residents more convenient, but in fact, I believe that the burden of administrative procedures is increasing considerably for people who do business. Amidst this, I believe that it is essential to develop an environment in which administrative procedures can be conducted efficiently by how to realize a service experience that is easy for business operators to use, and by accurately identifying common functions of the administrative procedure system for business operators and suppressing overlapping development.

Based on this, I have mentioned three pillars. The first is how the procedural systems in each ministries and agencies should be organized in the future, and as I mentioned earlier, what should be developed as common functions. Here, I have mentioned authentication / signatures, notifications, settlements, and base registries. In terms of the direction of the development of these systems and the experience of using administrative procedures, there are systems for residents like Mynaportal, but they are not for business operators, so I am sorting out what measures are necessary to improve the user experience.

All administrative procedures require authentication and login functions, but currently, for example, gBizID is widely used as a common authentication service for business operators. On the other hand, if you look at this, it is not yet used for all services. Considering the burden of having to manage multiple IDs and passwords, we should pursue a world in which single sign-on is possible in gBizID, and I think it is important to use other common functions.

Page 4 is a picture of what I explained earlier, but there is a system for processing procedures, and there is a common group of functions that are used in common, and these are used from the portal site to make procedures easier. I will briefly explain these three parts later.

First of all, regarding the arrangement of the procedural processing system, I believe that the actual procedures performed and the pain involved differ depending on the business operator. I believe that it is extremely important how we respond to such matters.

Second, I believe that it is possible to classify administrative procedures to some extent in terms of what kind of effect they have on business operators. I believe that it will be important in the future to consider systematization in accordance with the types of administrative procedures.

In terms of transactions, about 10% of the types of procedures account for nearly 90% of transactions. These are mainly taxes and social insurances. However, this area has been computerized for quite some time, and legacy technologies are being developed. How to modernize this area will be Issue.

On the other hand, administrative procedures account for 90% of transactions, although they account for only 10%. I believe it is very important to consider how to efficiently promote digitalization. In the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, there is an initiative called eMAFF, and in Digital Agency, there is a system called e-Gov. I believe it should be possible to use such platform services to easily promote digitization.

In that sense, for the 90% of transactions that I mentioned earlier, I would like to see each ministry and agency use platform services for those that have already been digitized, but for those that do not yet have the capacity to proceed with digitalization, one direction is to use e-Gov's application support service.

In addition, as I will explain later, the common function is used in common by various administrative procedure processing systems.

In the future, we would like to conduct a survey on how each ministry is actually developing such common functions and platform services, and by doing so, we would like to advance work on validation what kind of common functions can be incorporated into which system of which ministry.

Now, in terms of the specific common functions, as I mentioned earlier, the scope of this time is authentication / signature, notification, settlement, corporate information, and base registry, and we are considering these as basic common functions. In particular, authentication and signature are quite similar functions, or they are parts that are not yet properly used, but this authentication is to confirm in real time that the person who is taking some procedures is the business operator. On the other hand, electronic signatures are characterized by the fact that they can prove to a third party that the person has created the data of electronic records, and there are parts that users of the system have not yet recognized, so we are explaining again on page 13 that these two functions are actually different functions.

On the other hand, there were opinions at the regulatory reform Promotion Conference and others, and there are requests for the authentication and signature functions to be used in an integrated manner. The authentication part is gBizID, and the signature part, as you are attending today, is Commercial Registration E-Certificate of the Ministry of Justice, which performs the authentication function for corporations. I think there is one point that we can use this part in a coordinated manner.

Page 15 summarizes the current situation of gBizID and Commercial Registration E-Certificate, but I believe it is important to use these two in cooperation, and I would like to proceed with consideration in the future.

In that case, we would like to proceed with this in cooperation with the MOJ. Actually, the strength of Digital Agency is how to development and operate digital services. On the other hand, when providing signature and authentication functions, it is necessary to confirm the identity of the representatives, so I would like to see the MOJ take charge of this in the future. This is what I wrote on page 16. This is one of the common functions of authentication and signature.

On the other hand, with regard to the notification function, in e-Gov, there is actually a notification function for business operators, but I believe it is important to develop such a function so that it can be used for other administrative procedure processing systems.

In addition, with regard to settlement, settlement functions are now being shared among services for residents, and a function called REPS Collaboration, which links data on how payments are actually made to Ministry of Finance, is being developed in e-Gov. I believe that it is necessary to create a common settlement function by properly connecting these functions. development

Finally, regarding the base registry of corporate information, I think that this will be presented again later, so I will omit it, but I think that it is desirable to use this basic information as pre-fill in various administrative procedures and to reduce the trouble of obtaining information.

Lastly, with regard to "organizing the experience of administrative procedures by business operators," as I stated at the beginning, it is difficult for business operators to understand what procedures should be performed and from where. If we develop a portal for such business operators, or if we establish a two-factor authentication for identity verification, an app will always be necessary. So, while developing such an app, for example, we may consider a form in which the identity of business operators can be verified not only for administrative procedures but also for private sector procedures in cooperation with a mobile app in the future.

In addition, as a scope to be considered as an experience, when we develop an administrative procedure system, we have been thinking only about how to digitize the parts of where to look for and how to take procedures. However, we believe that it is necessary to create a system and a flow line in a form that is properly aware of a series of experiences in which people have an interest in an acknowledgment, search, and take action based on the model of AISAS.

As for this, we will continue to conduct research on what the user experience of such a business operator should be, and we would like to make a validation by creating a mock of a business operator portal as I mentioned earlier.

[Part of the "Business Procedures Service Task Force" is not disclosed.]

That's all I have to say for now.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. Thank you very much.

If you have any comments or questions about Mr. Yoshida's explanation, please let us know.

Mr. Masashima, please.

Member: . I think you gave me a very easy-to-understand explanation.

I would appreciate if you could tell me a little more on page 9. Now, the entire Issue is divided into three parts, and 10% of the services, which are 90%, are said to be moving away from legacy. You said modernization, but you talked about creating something new. It sounded like you would make development in Digital Agency for the middle part and continue the current efforts for the lower part. However, I felt that you could not clearly see what the architecture of the entire government system was like. In other words, from the top two, it seemed that you were basically assuming an architecture that would connect microservices. The middle part is exactly connecting with APIs, so you could create various small microservices and follow them if you connect them, and the rest would be low-code. I thought that you were saying that if you take such an architecture, it would be easy to scale or switch to a new one. On the other hand, when you use the existing one at the bottom, many of the existing ones are monolithic. In that case, what kind of architecture will the completed electronic administrative processing system be? It will be a short-term completed diagram for the time being, and if the existing one is used, it will be gradually switched to a modern architecture. I was wondering if you had a step-by-step image of this diagram. If you don't mind, I would like to know how you planned to create the entire architecture.
That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. Thank you.

Next, Ochiai member, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much. This matter is also very advanced, and I think it is wonderful.

In addition, I believe that there are parts of this architecture itself that need to be further organized as a whole, as Mr. Masashima said, but I also believe that one aspect is that we are proceeding with what we can do first. In that context, as far as we can see now, I believe that it is very important to firmly advance the legislation of gBizID.

In addition, in your explanation this time, you also talked about functions such as signatures. On the personal side, there is My Number Card, but in the case of corporations, commercial registration E-Certificate will be able to be used properly, so I think it is important for Digital Agency to support the Ministry of Justice in developing commercial registration E-Certificate and to promote remote signatures.

I believe that there is no mistake that these two points in particular need to be improved, but in addition, I believe that there are many parts that still need to be improved in Issue in various ways. Regarding settlement, for example, payment not only to the national treasury but also to local government through mechanisms such as eLTAX, which has been discussed at the regulatory reform Conference, but I believe that this area is also a quite heavy area that is difficult to improve. I believe that there are parts that contain extremely heavy content, but in that sense, there are parts that can be sequentially made, and I believe that other ministries and agencies have the authority, so there are parts that I can understand that Digital Agency cannot decide all. However, I believe that if Digital Agency does not come up with sufficient ideas, the ministries and agencies that have them will not know what to do. At least as a user experience, there is a tendency to create something bad, so I would like you to proceed while taking such points into consideration.

Finally, the fourth remaining issue in the digitalization of administrative procedures that has been discussed so far is the identification part. I think you showed me the ID part today, but there are also some parts that have not been organized in the mail and some parts that have not been digitalization. I think that is a relatively small issue, but I would like you to organize it in some stage.

That's all.

Secretariat (Kosaka): This is the Secretariat. Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Yohei Ishikawa, I have a plan after this, so I would like to leave now. Thank you very much, Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. . Please continue to guide us.

Senior Vice-Minister ISHIKAWA Digital: Thank you, members, for pointing this out. Please excuse me.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Then, if you have any comments from Mr. Yoshida, Planning Officer, please let me know.

Mr. Yoshida: When I talk about the system architecture of the first member in , I think it is very important to microservice the common functions so that they can be used in various administrative procedure systems. As is the case in Singapore and India, I think it is very important to develop the same infrastructure for the parts commonly used in various procedures such as authentication / signature and settlement. As Mr. Ochiai pointed out earlier, I would appreciate it if you could understand that there is a question raised here about the need to develop such common functions.

On the other hand, with regard to the procedural processing system, as you mentioned earlier in the gray part at the bottom of page 9, the eMAFF system, the Financial Services Agency and others have started to create a system that can perform administrative procedures in a general-purpose manner, and ministries and agencies have started to create a mechanism that can digitize administrative procedures with few transactions in a general-purpose manner. I think it is quite difficult to move forward with the replacement of the system to e-Gov, so I think it is important to divide roles by firmly supporting the system in e-Gov and other places that cannot be covered by such systems.

In the future, if we break down the procedural processing steps into more elements, it may be possible to create microservices, so I wonder if there could be such a discussion one step ahead, but at present, I think it is necessary to sort out such things first.

In addition, I understand that Dr. Ochiai's comments are being supported, and we believe that it is extremely important to enhance the common functions, so we would like to proceed with this in the future.
That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Thank you very much for joining us today. We would like to ask you to leave now.

Next is the fourth agenda item, "How age of AI should be held responsible for the accidents." As related ministries and agencies, the National Police Agency, Consumer Affairs Agency, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism are participating in this agenda item.

Then, Counselor Suga would like to explain.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your visit to . I would like to start considering age of AI's liability for the incident, and I would like to report on this as a new agenda.

On page 2, when I explained the future Issue for consideration at the 7th Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee in May, I received about 1,900 requests from the business community, and about 150 of them were considered to require an inspection of regulation from the viewpoint of the utilization of AI. Based on this, I said that I would like to advance a review and inspection of the rules for the utilization of AI at the Digital Rincho. As part of this, I would like to propose that the liability system be reorganized in preparation for the spread of automated driving vehicles.

In the first place, among the "Digital Principles for Structural Reforms," which were agreed upon immediately after the launch of the Digital Consultation, Principle 2 is the Agile Governance Principles. Among them, regarding check items (iii) and (iv), (iii) states that age of AI management methods will be reviewed, and systems will be developed for the introduction of monitoring and control software, log storage, cooperation in investigating the causes of accidents, and so on. And (iv) states that an integrated mechanism will be developed for the sharing of responsibility for accidents in age of AI. I believe that preparations have finally been made to advance discussions in accordance with the Digital Principles and check items.

Globally, as far as I can tell from the top right, the significance of agile governance has been recognized in G7 Digital Tech Ministers' Meeting, where we served as the chair, and the five principles of agile governance have been agreed upon. Recently, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry proposed the National Comprehensive Plan for Digital Lifeline Development, which is being developed in cooperation with each ministry. In addition to investment in hardware and software, it is written that in terms of rules, cars and drones in automated driving will spread in society from now on, and in order to ensure their safety, control will be automated and optimized, an incentive design will be created to encourage risk management, and agile governance will be implemented to investigate the causes of accidents and take immediate measures. I think it is about time that we start working on the parts of the agile governance principles that we have not worked on until now.

As you can see on page 3, I believe that the aim of the automated driving system is to make it possible to ensure a higher level of security than before by ensuring the implementation of innovation in society through the prompt relief of victims and the avoidance of a situation in which excessive responsibility is placed on a specific person, based on the assumption that the phenomenon of automated driving cars running automatically without the concept of a driver will enter society in the future. To that end, I would like to take measures to ensure that the current environment does not need to be changed as it is so that desirable incentives will work for the people concerned, but I would like to take measures to conduct thorough inspections and to conduct maintenance if necessary.

To be more specific, there are several risks that entities that intend to be involved in the manufacture and operation of cars in automated driving are facing. First of all, if you cause one social accident in the first place, there is a risk of a serious brand decline, and there is a possibility that you will be subject to major social sanctions, including the fact that you will have to stop all operations immediately.

In addition, legally, in civil cases, even if the occurrence of an accident cannot be predicted, there is a risk that you will be told later that there were measures to prevent the accident and will be claimed for compensation for damage. It is a risk that you will be involved in a lawsuit.

Second, in the criminal field, I believe there is a possibility that an individual or a corporation may suddenly be held criminally responsible for an act that falls under the constituent elements of a crime.

Since the operation of a automated driving vehicles is realized by the entanglement of various complex systems, there are bound to be cases of limitations due to complex factors. In such a case, there is an incentive to atrophy the development for fear of risk, or to keep all information confidential without saying anything when something close to an accident occurs, including a close call. We would like to avoid a state in which information disclosure and learning do not progress due to this. In preparation for the spread of the automated driving vehicles, we have received many opinions that we should deepen discussions on the liability system in the event of damage caused by the operation of the Issue as one of the main automated driving vehicles to be addressed.

As for page 4, the direction we should aim for is roughly divided into systems and rules to run automated driving vehicles. First, what we can do on the system side is to collect data on the cars in automated driving and the driving environments around them. Not only when accidents occur, but the advantage of digitalization is that information on close calls and near-misses can be collected as big data via the system. By analyzing it thoroughly and constantly validation the cause of why such an incident occurred, the whole society learns information on accidents and close calls and feeds it back to society. By doing so, each player continuously improves the system, which is exactly the mechanism for agile improvement, I think we can implementation.

Also, in terms of rules, I would like to make a risk management of a mechanism in which society provides an incentive to cooperate fully in the investigation of the cause of accidents when they occur, such as appropriate implementation and cooperation in the investigation.

To this end, I would like to ask you to consider specific issues. It is necessary to define the necessary organization and system requirements, such as who should collect and analyze information, including information on close calls, and how to provide feedback. In addition, I would like to ask you to consider what kind of authority the organization has to be able to provide useful information to society quickly.

In terms of rules, first of all, when a company makes a development for a product or operates a product, there is always information that only a company can know, so I would like to see a liability system that encourages risk management autonomously or in a cooperative manner. In addition, if necessary, in the event of an accident that is difficult to predict, there is a possibility of implementation of a system in which if a company has done so, it will be exempt from liability from then on. In that case, I would like to ask you to consider specifying the exemption requirements with the participation of multi-stakeholders, rather than someone making a decision on their own.
At the same time, it does not mean that no remedy will be given because of impunity, but it is possible to separate responsibility from remedy. Therefore, I would like to see the implementation of insurance and public relief systems for the relief of victims and the reduction of risks for companies, so that there will be no difference in the way victims fall for what kind of car they were hit by.

[Part of "age of AI's Approach to Accident Liability" is not disclosed.]

That's all for my request and report. That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Mr. Inadani, may I have your say?

Inadani Member: This is Inadani .

You are absolutely right. This is an extremely important issue. At the same time, I believe it is clear to a certain extent that if we do not somehow clear this issue, we will not be able to move forward as a whole. Under the current system, liability for negligence and liability based on the concept of defects, such as product liability, can be clearly defined to a certain extent, and the consequences can be avoided by eliminating such risks. This is the mechanism that is being created.

If so, it is inevitable that the problems of AI that behaves stochastically or accidents caused by complex elements as you pointed out are not developed as a very suitable model. We will make improvements while paying particular attention to these points. In particular, as you explained, by passing on the responsibility system, information will be shared as much as necessary, and incentives will be created so that the system as a whole, as well as the automated driving system, which was the problem, and the legal system will evolve as a set. This is probably what you talked about in agile governance, and I think it is necessary for implementation. There are detailed points to be discussed, so I will leave it at this point. I will be committed to this issue and will work on it responsibly. If necessary, please let me know anytime, and I will do my best.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Then, Ochiai members, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you.

It is a very grand issue, but I think it is very important because it seems to be one of the final goals to be able to work on it so far.

First of all, although it is time-limited, I understand that it needs to be implemented urgently, or in relation to the National Comprehensive Development Plan for Digital Lifeline, it needs to be implemented as soon as possible. In fact, it is very difficult, or rather, it will completely change the very foundation of society, so it is assumed that it will take several years to completely change the Civil Code itself or the Criminal Code.

On the other hand, in the National Comprehensive Plan for Digital Lifeline Development and other plans, we are working on the definition of the road side and the development of system requirements. In the process of sorting out the obligations to act, I think there is a way to create parts that can be limited, such as conditions, so that implementation can be done ahead of time, and some results can be achieved first in the middle. In that sense, I think the final structure of the law itself will change, but I would like to firmly discuss the establishment of short-term conditions and the creation of loopholes. I am also often participating in review meetings at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and other ministries in relation to mobility, so I would like to follow Mr. Inadani and cooperate as much as possible in this area.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Member Masashima, please.

Member: Thank you.

This is an extremely important matter, but I was wondering what level of discussion will be held. I have a feeling that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism and various other people will probably not be involved in the final system, and in that case, as I may have written earlier in the form of the ideal way, I asked if the idea of developing the system will be organized at a more abstract level.

In the case of agile governance, I discussed the overall responsibility not only for automobiles, but I think it will be more specific and focused on automobiles. I heard that it will be done there, but if it is done as a specific system, it will probably be out of control, so I thought it would be a discussion on the level that it will not go that far.

In terms of the level of discussion, I think that what we are aiming for now is that the same discussion will surely appear in the regulation of AI, so if it is probabilistic and complex, I think it will be the same, so I felt while asking you if you are thinking of organizing the ideas at the level that will be a model when considering such things. I thought that if the image is correct, if you dive into a specific story, it will be mixed with interests and become a mess, and it will be broken down, so I thought it would be good if you could tell me which level you are going to do it at.
That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. Thank you.

What do you think, Mr. Suga? Do you have a level that does not require disassembly?

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your visit to Thank you.

I believe that we are at the stage where the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation and the systems will first gather and agree to consider with an open mind whether there are any decisive disadvantages in operating the current systems for a long time to come, including the possibility that it will be a discussion that will change the existing legal regulation in fundamental parts and call for fundamental consideration. Rather than suddenly entering into specific discussions on changing the systems in this way, we will first discuss what will happen if a car in automated driving that does not necessarily have a driver or a person like a driver enters society. We will discuss this in a way that is close to a simulation. As you just said, I believe that it is a more general-purpose discussion that machines will substitute for functions that have been performed by humans when various AI will enter society in the future, not limited to cars. I would like you to discuss this in a way that is not locally optimal when it spreads to such a place.

Of course, we would appreciate if we could come to the conclusion that we would change something specifically or create a new system after that discussion. But first of all, let's get together and sort out our thoughts. That is what I called for.

Member: That's right. I felt that it is important to properly gather people who understand where we are looking.

.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

However, we have already received an offer of cooperation from an influential teacher, so this is very encouraging. Thank you very much.

To all concerned ministries and agencies, thank you very much for taking the time to attend. I would like to ask you to leave now.

The fifth agenda item is "Base Registry and Institutional Issue." I would like you to discuss this in two parts. The first part is "Data Governance under the New information linkages Mechanism," and the second part is "Number Systems and Development of Base Registry for Address, Location, and Building Information."

As for the first part, "Data Governance under the New information linkages Mechanism," I would like to ask for an explanation from Mr. Keiho Ura.

Councilor . Thank you very much.

First of all, I would like to explain about data governance. Regarding the current provisions of the Number Act in the administrative procedures on page 2, first of all, for a corporate information linkages between public authorities, it is written in the Number Act that the corporate number should be used, and it is stipulated that each public authorities must ensure accurate information.

However, although each public authorities has confirmed the existence of the corporation in the notification that came to them, they have not necessarily used the corporation number in their business affairs, and there is little need to grasp and manage the corporation number with strong awareness.

In the future, when we implement information linkages using corporate numbers as common identifiers and realize services such as omission of attachments and omission of matters to be notified, I think it is necessary to be more strongly aware of the necessity of management based on Article 42 of the Number Act.

In addition, in data connections, if we do not firmly establish standards for characters, for example, even if special characters are handled in one public authorities, they cannot be handled in another public authorities, and data connections will not proceed smoothly, so we need to take care of these areas.

On page 3, Article 42, which I mentioned earlier, will eliminate the need to notify each industry each time they make a information linkages. For example, if an address is changed in the registration information, if the address notified in another public authorities that is linked to the corporate number is also changed, it is important to ensure that the corporate number is retained and that the information is properly linked to the correct information. If the link is wrong, there is a possibility that the information of a different corporation will be rewritten. In order to properly manage the corporate number, we believe that it is necessary to oblige the corporation to submit the corporate number when submitting the corporate number, or to properly obtain the corporate number from the gBizID accounts.

Including this, in order to properly fulfill data governance in information linkages in the digital age, I think it is necessary to clarify the entire framework of procedures. As the entire framework is described on page 4, Digital Agency will coordinate the entire framework. It is Article 4 of the Numbers Act and the Digital Procedure Act, but I believe that Digital Agency is in charge of creating the mechanism of information linkages, formulating data standards and requirements, and creating regulations such as the omission of notification matters as I mentioned earlier.

In addition, the Ministry of Justice and the National Tax Administration Agency, which are the sources of information, will promote accurate registration, assign corporate numbers, and so on. In addition, Digital Agency will provide the data connections function by information linkages. And public authorities, which will use it, will clearly divide its roles, such as organizing the matters to be notified and accurately linking corporate numbers, and we believe that it is necessary to clearly explain the entire mechanism.

That's all for the first part.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

We will continue to hear from you on Part 2, and then ask you questions and comments throughout.

This is the next part. Part 2 is "Development of Numbering Systems and Base Registries for Address, Location, and Building Information." As related ministries and agencies, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism are also participating. Please let Councilor Nobuura explain.

Councilor .

This is the real estate part of the base registry. Page 2 here summarizes the current status and goal of address, location, and building information. First of all, at present, there is no place that centrally manages address, location, and building information as an administration. As a result, public authorities and private business independently develop such information individually, which causes costs such as duplication of development when viewed from the perspective of society as a whole.

In addition, since each of them has its own system, addresses and character information inevitably have fluctuations in notation, so if you try to link or reconcile data between business operators, it will be difficult.

In addition, there is a Issue for the address system itself, and if there are multiple properties in the same address, for example, it is necessary for the courier company to investigate them on site.

Against this background, while firmly operating the existing systems, our purpose is to develop information managed under a unified number that can be referred to by public authorities and others, which we call base registry for address, so that public authorities and others can refer to it and create business efficiency, collaborative businesses, and new businesses.

On page 3, we have given examples of specific needs and difficulties based on hearings from private sector. For example, when it comes to the identification of buildings at the time of delivery on the upper right side, as I mentioned earlier, there are multiple properties with the same address. On the left side, for example, infrastructure companies and companies engaged in real estate transactions have their own databases, but when they try to match them, they have to be manually operated due to the fluctuation of the notation. There are needs that it is difficult to proceed with data connections smoothly.

On page 4, I have arranged the current situation in a philosophical manner. In particular, (iii) and (iv) are managed by the registration system, but in real estate registry, land, buildings, etc. are basically managed in the form of lot numbers. In addition, in (ii), buildings are assigned residence numbers in local government, but this information is not necessarily linked to the lot number in (iv). Furthermore, in (I), addresses that are generally used, for example, the name of a building, the name of an apartment, or the name of an apartment may be written. We aim to create an easy-to-use database by linking such information with the information held by the government in (ii), (iii), and (iv), so that the address used in (I) is also linked to such information.

If that is the case, I believe there will be discussions on how much detail the administration should take. On page 5, of course, the administration will develop common areas to a certain extent as cooperative areas, and I believe there will be areas where private sector will create added values as competitive areas, so I believe it will be necessary to conduct future discussions and coordination on where to divide the areas.

I would like to point out one thing about this. On page 6, I think it is an example of a corporate number. Originally, credit investigation companies and the like used to collect information on corporations on their own, give IDs and the like, and sell the information, for example. Now, it is stipulated that the National Tax Administration Agency specifies a corporate number and opens the name, office location and the like. In a sense, it is set as a cooperative areas by the administration, and on top of that, private sector is developing its own service. This is the world of corporate numbers, so I think it is necessary to discuss something similar in the field of real estate.

On page 7, what kind of cooperative areas is provided by the administration as I just mentioned and where is competitive areas, although it is still rough, is briefly described. If you can see that the granularity of prefectures, municipalities, and town letters gradually becomes finer from the left to the right, the area code, residence number, and building number are information that the administration already has by numbering, etc., so I think it is appropriate to view this as a cooperative areas that the administration will continue to develop and provide.

On the other hand, as for the extremely detailed information described in the examples on the far right, we believe that it is appropriate to use competitive areas. On the other hand, the names of buildings, etc. in the middle may or may not appear in the place managed by the administration of the residence, so we are currently thinking that it may be possible to devise some kind of improvement in this area, for example, in the semi-public sector version of cooperative areas, where the public and private sectors cooperate in improvement.

With regard to what base registry for address will develop and how it will develop it going forward, as I stated earlier as the source of information, base registry for address will develop the indication of residence, such as the residence number, given to the residence managed by the municipality, and the registration information, such as the parcel number, managed by the Ministry of Justice. Most importantly, as stated on the right, we are now thinking of aiming for a place where if you have any of this information, you can search for other information.
Let me review why the lot number and the residence number are separate in the flow. On page 9, when you build a building, there is still land information at the time of application for confirmation of construction, and the building will be built where the lot number is managed. When the building is built, the local government will assign the residence number, which will be distributed at the address later.

On the other hand, in the registration of real estate, if there are multiple lot numbers where buildings are located, a representative lot number is selected based on certain rules, and after that, it is managed as the representative lot number as the registration information, so at this stage, the so-called address and lot number are managed independently.

On page 10, what we will do with this in the future is that it will be necessary to consolidate it when it is put into the base registry in some form, but basically it is divided into two parts: what to do with what we have now and what we will do in the future.

As for the existing ones, as described on page 11, it is impossible to rewrite the addresses in the existing information. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to utilize the various information currently available, link and aggregate the lot number and address, and build the initial data.

On page 12, if a new building is to be built in the future, it will be necessary to add or create some kind of linking process at the upstream stage, such as the creation of a ledger of residential indication and real estate registry. This will be the Issue in the future.

Including these, I would like to summarize the Issue for the realization of base registry for address. On page 13, regarding the development of initial data, it is necessary to determine the collection of information, integration of data, and linkage. In addition, it is necessary to update the data on a daily basis, but we are also trying to understand the actual situation of how the level of town letters is managed, including various hearings, and I feel that there are various depending on the local government.

In addition, regarding the frequency of updating the parcel number, etc., it is currently available if it is an annual update, but there is a Issue of how finely it can be chopped. In addition, I think it will be necessary to decide how to solve the problem of multiple properties with the same residence number, which I mentioned earlier, while coordinating with each of the relevant ministries and agencies.

Finally, on page 14, I would like to give an image of where rough schedule will be realized based on the Issue that I just mentioned. First of all, in terms of granularity, I believe that the provision of information at the town and village level, which is relatively high, can be achieved by developing systems to some extent. Therefore, we are considering the next two to three years as one characteristic.

On the other hand, in terms of more granular residential indication and lot number, what kind of rules will be used to develop and institutionalize the system, and how will the information be linked? I believe that we need to spend some time to carefully discuss this, so I have an image of a schedule in which we will spend some time providing information at the town and village level, and then aim to provide detailed information.

That's all for now. Thank you for your discussions and questions.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on the explanation by Counselor Tsuboura.

Mr. Masashima, please.

Member: Thank you.

I have been listening to you because I thought this update was very important. In addition to asking how long it will take for local government to provide the system, I think it is probably necessary to watch the update from the user side. From the user side, there is such a gap in the period between updates, and there is a possibility that there is a gap in the period after all, so let's say there is a question of whether people will actually use the system. Then, we don't know if the results of the system, such as the phenomenon that the system was able to be used as usual but not used, are true, so if we have to do something else to achieve the purpose, we may have the usual tragedy. I feel a little concerned about this. Of course, this is a very difficult topic, but I think it may be directly related to whether it will be used or not. If you have any thoughts on what kind of solutions there are from your point of view, could you please tell us?

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. Thank you.

Then, I would like to ask other members to give their comments before answering.
Mr. Iwamura, please.

Member of Iwamura: Thank you, Thank you.

I think Dr. Masashima's point is very important. From the user's point of view, I think that the convenience will be greatly improved by the implementation, like the delivery DX, but on the other hand, it is troublesome that the information will not be used and the accuracy of the information will be uncertain. I agree with your concern.

In addition, like the ID of the Real estate technology Association explained at the 22nd Working Group, I hope that private sector's efforts and data will be utilized and promoted toward realization.
That's all.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Member of Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much.

As you just discussed, I think it is important to consider the degree to which priority is necessary, so I think there is one case of delivery. In addition, for example, in real estate transactions, there are many links to be made, and I think it will become difficult again. I think it will be while steadily building up use cases, and I think that is the way to proceed.

In addition, what I think is particularly important about the address is that there are parts that cannot be completely finished, so I think it is important to have the courage to throw them away somewhere. Therefore, I think it is necessary to maintain a certain level of accuracy and make it as accurate as possible in business. However, some errors and system shortages are inevitable, and updates are delayed. In addition, I think there are some cases where there are questions about how accurate the original data itself is. I think it is very important to control expectations by throwing away some of these points.

I think there may be various opinions in society, but I thought that if we proceed while paying attention to how to set out the framework and how to control expectations, we will be able to proceed while avoiding unnecessary criticism.

That's all from me.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Now, I would like to ask Councilor Keippo to make a statement.

Councilor : Thank you very much for your comments and messages of support.

First of all, regarding the granularity of data, the frequency of update, and the guarantee of currency, fortunately, there are not so many cases in a year in which the town letters are changed, so I believe that a certain amount of currency can be guaranteed. Regarding the granularity of data at the town letter level, there are already fluctuations in the notation at the town letter level, and I have heard that it is difficult to conduct operations such as cross-checking, so I have heard the need to be grateful for the development of such a database even for information at the town letter level.

Next time, when I brought it to a more granular place, there were various Issue, and I received very grateful advice about whether it is necessary to control expectations at the end or to have the courage to abandon perfection in a sense. I don't think that a certain level of accuracy is a reason to delay sufficient service by asking for perfection too much, so I would like to proceed with that point with great attention.

With regard to granularity and frequency, for example, regarding fine-grained information, even if it is not necessarily up-to-date, I have heard from related ministries and agencies that it is useful to a certain extent. Therefore, for example, when a certain amount of initial data has been prepared, even if the frequency of subsequent updates is not necessarily high, I have a sense that it will be quite useful. Perhaps the examples are limited to several ministries and agencies, but even so, I have heard that it will be sufficiently useful for, for example, reducing the workload at the time of investigation to a certain extent or obtaining a certain degree of knowledge in the first place.

In a sense, it may take a little time to be able to update detailed information such as parcel numbers on a daily basis, both in terms of the system and institutional collateral, but I believe that the ultimate goal is to reach that point in the end. However, there is a certain degree of usefulness in each phase until then, and there are requests for using such a database, so I would like to start with the idea of providing such a database in stages.

In addition, there was a comment on the utilization of private sector City data. Various delivery companies and map dealers are developing private sector City data, and I would like to coordinate with them on how to separate cooperative areas and competitive areas. First of all, at the stage of developing the initial data, I believe it is necessary to make great use of private sector City data for linking lot numbers and addresses, and I would like to work out the details in the future.

Thank you.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .

Then, I would like to end my presentation on the fifth item. Please leave here for Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism. Thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule today.

Finally, I would like to ask the Secretariat to explain about the next Working Group meeting.

Secretariat (Kurisu): Thank you very much for .

As for the details of the next Working Group meeting, the Secretariat will contact you later.

As for today's agenda, if you do not have any objections to part of Agenda 3 "Business Procedures Service Task Force" and part of Agenda 4 "age of AI's Liability for Accidents", we would like to keep them closed to the public, prepare the minutes later, and make them public after everyone has confirmed them.

In addition, with regard to the handling of today's materials, we would like to disclose them on the age of AI website, except for part of the materials on Agenda 3 "Business Procedure Service Task Force" and part of the materials on Agenda 4 "Liability for Accidents in Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee".
Thank you very much for your participation today.

Mr. Annen (Vice-Chairman): Thank you, Mr. .
With that, we conclude the twenty fourth session of the Working Group. Thank you all.