22nd meeting of the Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group

Overview

Date and time: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 (2023) from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. About Base Registries and Institutional Issue
  2. Progress of "Technology-based regulatory reform" and how to proceed for the time being
  3. Exchange of opinions
3. Adjournment

Materials

Minutes, etc.

Date

Wednesday, July 26, 2023 (2023), from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Location

Held online

Attendees

Chairman

OGUSHI Masaki (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)
Katsuya Uenoyama (President of PKSHA Technology, Inc.)
Takafumi Ochiai (Attorney at law, Atsumi & Sakai, Foreign Law Joint Enterprise)

Minutes

Secretariat (Mimura): This is the time, I would like to open the twenty second session of the Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group.

I understand that Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister Okushi, Members Inadani and Uenoyama will be attending the meeting in the middle of the day due to business reasons, and Members IWAMURA, SUGAWARA and MASUJIMA will be absent due to business reasons.

In addition, on the first agenda item of today, "Base Registry and Institutional Issue," we will invite experts to participate in the discussion.

I would like to begin today's proceedings immediately. I would like to ask Vice Chairman Annen to proceed with the rest of the proceedings. Mr. Annen, please.

Deputy Chairman: Let's get down to business.

The proceedings of the 22nd meeting are (1) "Base Registry and Institutional Issue" and (2) "Progress of' Technology-Based regulatory reform' and Its Immediate Future."

Regarding the first item on the agenda, "Base Registry and Institutional Issue," I would like you to discuss it in two parts, first, "Systems related to information linkages between public authorities," and second, "Number System related to Address and Location (base registry for address)." The first part is "Systems related to information linkages between public authorities," and I would like to advance the discussion with the participation of the Secretariat of the personal data Committee, Attorney Yoichiro Itakura of Hikari Law Office, and Professor Joji Shishido of the Graduate School of Law and Politics at the University of Tokyo.

First of all, I would like to hear an explanation from Counselor Keiho Ura.

[The "Regulations Pertaining to public authorities information linkages" is not disclosed.]

Deputy Chairman: Now, regarding the next part, "Number System for Addresses and Locations (base registry for address)," Mr. Tasuku Ito of Yamato Transport Co., Ltd., Mr. Kiyoshi Takizawa of Linaf Co., Ltd., and Mr. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of the Ministry of Justice are also participating.

First of all, I would like to hear an explanation from Counselor Keiho Ura.

Counselor: I would like to explain about the numbering system for addresses and locations.

On page 2, regarding today's discussion, we will have a presentation on the needs of business operators in private sector. base registry for address itself is thinking of a numbering system to uniquely identify geographical identifiers related to addresses and locations, but the details of how and to what extent it will be done still need to be worked out, so we will continue to consider it based on today's presentation.

On page 3, if I write down what we are aiming for in big words, it is in the blue letters in the middle. Basically, we have address, location, and building information that are managed separately, so the cost of maintenance and data interoperability cannot be guaranteed. In the future, we will create new value by reducing duplicate costs and promoting public authorities by developing it as an integrated social infrastructure and sharing it among private sector and data connections companies.

Geographical identifiers are briefly illustrated on the next page. Prefectures, names of municipalities, and town letters are familiar to us, and I don't think there are any objections to this point. On a more detailed level, first of all, there is a system called the lot number used in real estate registry at the bottom. If you take the route on the left, when you buy a building or land, it is managed by the lot number, so when we obtain information on the real estate registry, we can see this lot number.

On the other hand, the residential indication is given by local government when a building is built, so in fact, we do not go so far as to write the name of the building in detail, and it is not necessarily linked to the lot number. How we can make this area into a database that can be operated integrally will be a future Issue.

On page 5, it is often said that there is a shaking in Issue. In the case of Kasumigaseki, there is a shaking in okurigana, etc., and there are also differences in Chinese characters. In the first place, when it is written as the number of 2-1 or 2-11, it is not immediately known whether it is a residence indication, what it is, or a parcel number. Therefore, I am aware that this area will also be Issue when data is compiled.

In addition, if you try to match the parcel number with the address, it is not necessarily a clear match, so I believe that there is a way to use location information, for example, to match the parcel number with the address, but in any case, I am aware that it will be necessary to consider the Issue and technical Issue in the future.

That is all for the explanation from the secretariat.

Deputy Chairman: . Next, I would like to ask Mr. Itoh of Yamato Transport to give an explanation.

Yamato Transport (Mr. Yamato Transport. Today, I would like to explain how we would like to use the base registry and what kind of maintenance we expect based on it.

On page 2, as you know, the Year 2024 problem is approaching, and there is a shortage of labor in the distribution industry. To deal with this, there is one thing called automation, but I think the first urgent Issue is to improve business efficiency a little before that. The arrow below shows the flow of goods we receive. Goods received from customers go to a business office in town, go to a base point, which is a core distribution facility, and are distributed again through trunk line transportation. When the goods actually arrive, the base on which "arrival" is written can be imagined as a large core facility, such as one in the prefecture of the destination. When the goods arrive here, you cannot go to the subordinate business office, or when the goods arrive at the business office, it is true that the goods are in our area as a large unit, but where the goods actually belong to.

As for condominiums, there are some condominiums where the automatic lock is released by a digital key. However, this is not done by our company in the form of a check. We use a digital key to unlock the door based on the fact that the luggage has been delivered to a specific individual in the condominium where the luggage is delivered.

As a result, there have been cases in which, for example, the address has been changed or there has been a defect, and in the end, it is not possible to know where to deliver the item, or the digital key has not been issued properly and the auto lock cannot be released. In the end, there have been cases in which it has been necessary to call the person who has issued the item or the person who will receive it to confirm the issue. However, there have been many cases in which the investigation has been conducted by calling the person who has issued the item or the person who will receive it, and there have been many cases in which there have been errors in the judgment of the digital key.

On page 3, there is no standardized address. There is a postal code, but the address itself is not standardized, so we would like to eliminate errors by moving it to real estate ID. In the end, it would be best if the name of the apartment and the room number were included.

In addition, although human beings are currently delivering, when we finally consider the automation by robots and drones as I mentioned earlier, if the location information of this address, that is, where it is in terms of latitude and longitude, is added, it will be seamlessly connected to automation in the future, I hope.

That's all from our company.

Deputy Chairman: Ito.

Next, I would like to ask Mr. Takizawa of Linaf Corporation for an explanation. Thank you very much.

Linaf Co., Ltd. (Mr. Takizawa): Nice to meet you. I am Takizawa of Linaf Corporation.

I am currently the representative of Linac, a smart lock company, and I am also the representative director of the Real estate technology Association of Japan, so I would like to talk about the background of Real estate technology.

The Real estate technology Association itself has a goal of spreading Real estate technology widely in the real estate industry. However, in expanding Real estate technology here, the address part is becoming the most Issue. The Real estate technology Association has also started an ID initiative called Real Estate Open ID about two years ago. The reason is that it is difficult for Real estate technology companies to work together without an ID for real estate, just like My Number.

On the other hand, even if a private sector company says, for example, that everyone should use the ID of a specific company, it will cause opposition. As a general incorporated association, we started an activity to add IDs about two years ago, and currently about 200 companies are using IDs.

Originally, I saw an article by Mr. Geolonia saying, "It was too hard to normalize the address of the real estate, and I had a nosebleed." Since 2020, the Real estate technology Association and Mr. Geolonia have been working on the ID of the real estate jointly.

Regarding the Issue in the Real estate technology, as Yamato Transport said earlier, there are fluctuations in the addresses in the databases of each company, fluctuations in the names of buildings, and different IDs. When we tried to link them, we had to use the IDs of each real estate company. For example, when Company A asked for advice, we spent two to three months to get the same ID as Company A. When another real estate company asked for advice, we had to respond on a company-by-company basis by doing another development, even though the rental management software company and the data provision company are the same company.

On the other hand, if you give an ID to all of them, it will be smooth, so we have made a real estate open ID. Based on that, we aim to create a world view that the transaction is ultimately a bank transaction, and the information when the building is built is accurately held by the intermediary company.

Regarding the Open ID of the Real estate technology Association, the main feature is that the process of creation is open, and in the form of open source, all the algorithms that eventually generate IDs are open. The address normalization system is also provided in open source.

As a mechanism, we provide it in the form of an API that returns a unique ID when you enter a building name from an address. In a word, it is an image in which an ID is attached to an address.

In terms of a specific mechanism, based on the address, it is converted into latitude and longitude, and the latitude and longitude are made into a mesh of about eight meters square, and an ID is assigned to the mesh, and the ID is finally assigned. We provide it as an API with such a mechanism.

In the case of actual use, we use it to link the system of the delivery address and the key of the building to open the automatic lock of the condominium. In one flow of real estate, we use the open ID of the real estate to link the system of rental advertisement placement, preview, and application. We use it not for cooperation between companies but for aggregation of building data of one company. In the case of non-life insurance companies, we have a database for each contractor, so we cannot see how much crime rate there is in a condominium or how much theft occurs. We use it not for the database of the contractor but for the initiative to be able to see it by building.

If the real estate open ID has been developed to that extent, will it work in the world? There are still more Issue, and it is a point where the real estate open ID has not spread. There are two main Issue.

First, you don't know if the address really exists. Second, you can't tell if there are multiple buildings at the same address.

First of all, regarding the question of whether this address really exists, as you explained at the beginning, there are parts that are understood by the government from the prefecture to the municipality and the town / village letter, and parts that are understood by the municipality. For example, "Setagaya-ku, Tokyo" is understood by the government, and "Demuridaru Z-chome X-2" is understood by the municipality. As for the building, the municipality also understands it in the building confirmation. However, Demuridaru Z-chome X-2 is available. X-3 and X-4 are also available. Then, whether Demuridaru Z-chome X-99 is available or not, only the municipality understands it.

In addition, there are places where each municipality has its own database, and there are places where it is managed by Excel. In addition, there are places where it is managed by writing with a pen in the margin of the residential map, and in the end, it is impossible for the person in charge of the municipality to know whether the address really exists or not unless they see the map.

In addition, with regard to the problem of multiple buildings with the same address, for example, there are many cases in which there are multiple buildings with residence numbers "30" and "17" and multiple buildings with the same address, so we are very much looking forward to the real estate ID operated by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism to solve this problem.

As you may already know, real estate ID is made based on the number of the certified copy of the registry. However, Issue is here, and it is difficult to obtain a certified copy of the registry from the address. This is also an example, but when you try to obtain a certified copy of a building with a certain address, you first determine the parcel number below by visual inspection the blue map, and then obtain the cadastral map based on the parcel number. Then, you can find out how many brushes are in a certain building, and the building is registered somewhere above this brush. Therefore, the actual real estate company takes a considerable amount of time to investigate this. It is the current situation that the real estate number and the certified copy of the registry are reached for the first time.

Then, I think that the real estate ID will be over if only a mechanism can be made to match the address and the parcel number well, but the difficulty is that in addition to changing the address, the parcel number itself moves well. What it means is that, for example, I want to carry out the development again, but I cannot obtain the consent of two-thirds of the leaseholders. For this reason, the land under the existing building is cut into small pieces and cut into multiple brush strokes vertically, thereby increasing the leaseholder and carrying out the development again. This is what happens. In other words, the address of the building itself above has always existed unchanged, but only the parcel number of the land below has suddenly increased to multiple brush strokes.

As for what I expect from base registry for address, first of all, I would like it to understand the real time address of the residence indication. The first is that I would like the country to understand that this address really exists.

Second, if possible, I would like to link the address and the parcel number. There is an example where only the parcel number is increased to multiple brushes, so it is quite difficult, but it will be necessary for the success of the real estate ID, so I would like you to do your best.

Third, if you can provide latitude and longitude information, it will accelerate the development of tech companies in private sector.

With these three points in mind, I came to the stage today. Thank you for your kind attention.

Deputy Chairman: , Counselor, Mr. Itoh of Yamato Transport, and Mr. Takizawa of Linaf Corporation, please let us know.

First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Itoh of Yamato Transport. In the box on page 3, there is a description that "In our company, by converting the delivery information to' real estate ID,'" but does' real estate ID' here mean that you have made your own development?

Yamato Transport (Mr. It is not our own development, but the one developed by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

Deputy Chairman: Is it working well enough so far?

Yamato Transport (Mr. I understand that the purpose of today's meeting is to what extent this will be developed. If possible, I believe that efficiency can be made if all the "Contents to be developed as a base registry" at the bottom of page 3 are developed.

Deputy Chairman: , information at the room level and the dwelling unit level is probably essential.

Yamato Transport (Mr. ): As Mr. Takizawa explained earlier, in the end, we do not know if the address exists or not until the package arrives and goes to the business office. Even if there are people who do not write down the address even though it is clearly specified as a chome, we cannot be sure if it is okay to leave it as it is. In that sense, it will be a big difference whether or not the destination, including the room, actually exists, or whether or not we can say that it does not exist in the system, so please check it again before the package is sent out.

Deputy Chairman: . Member Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: Thank you very much, I understand well that it is an extremely complex problem. In particular, I understand very well that it is an amazing world when I listen to an example in which only the parcel number is increased to multiple strokes. One of the things I heard from you was that you wanted us to provide latitude and longitude information, but I thought this was a surprisingly good idea. I feel that it is impossible to provide room information, but I thought that it would work if we could decide to some extent where to take the latitude and longitude in the building and connect all the latitude and longitude with the real estate ID. The reason is that it is difficult to use latitude and longitude at present. Is this difficult from the perspective of security or other matters? I would like to ask if the reason why it does not work is a technical problem or a legal problem, or if it is technically not very useful, and what the problem is.

Deputy Chairman: As far as I know, in the place where the cadastral survey is conducted, the latitude and longitude of the four corners of the land are up to enormous numbers. Mr. Takizawa, please.

Linaf Co., Ltd. (Mr. Takizawa): As you said, we have taken a cadastral survey, and the government does not know what is not being investigated.

In private sector, people who pay for a service called geocoder create latitude and longitude information using their own legs and aerial maps, and provide it as a service. However, in principle, it is prohibited to store it for more than 30 days.

As for real estate ID this time, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is conducting a model project for real estate ID, and they are providing latitude and longitude information, but they are asking us to delete it after the deadline this time. In that sense, latitude and longitude information is provided very carefully by each private sector company.

If the government were to purchase these in bulk, it would probably never be completed if it waited for a cadastral survey. Therefore, if the government provided latitude and longitude information for the address, it would be possible to overlap the location number and address information and use the latitude and longitude information well to achieve 99%, but not 100%, with the power of technology. Therefore, the government would be grateful if it could provide latitude and longitude information.

Deputy Chairman: .

However, attaching latitude and longitude information to land and attaching it to buildings will be different stories again. When it comes to real-time information, I think both are difficult. There was an example earlier where only the parcel number was increased to multiple brushes, but I think that in Japan, it is basically allowed to do the subdivision of land freely. If you do not follow a piece of land in real time, there is no guarantee that a piece of land will continue to be the same parcel number forever, so you can divide and merge parcels, which is also quite difficult. Everyone knows when a building collapses, but land is also born and destroyed, so it is actually very difficult to follow it in real time.

One more thing I would like to ask you, Mr. Takizawa. If you were to research this, it would be a very difficult job. Did you make it on the premise that you would monetize it?

Linaf Co., Ltd. (Mr. Takizawa): We are doing all the normalizing mechanisms of this real estate open ID, but we are providing all of them for free. In our case, we are a Real estate technology association, so we are doing it on a non-profit basis as an incorporated association, and we are not monetizing it, but we are doing it by generating development expenses out of the annual membership fees of about 200 companies that are members. This is what the Tech Association aims to do, which is to promote the fusion of real estate and technology and spread tech.

Deputy Chairman: . We would like the Secretariat to cooperate with the relevant ministries and agencies based on the needs and discussions from private business today.

That's all for the first agenda item.

Next, Mr. Hitoshi Suga will explain the second item on the agenda, "Progress of' Technology-based regulatory reform' and how to proceed in the near future."

Secretariat (Suga): In relation to the points pointed out by Dr. Ochiai Since I made a report last time in February, there has been more time available, and today, there are more contents of the report.

On page 4, there are five items that I would like to report on this time. First, as I said we would conduct a technical validation, we have started a specific public offering, and I would like to report on the status of progress.

Second, I would like to report that we have considerably organized what should be set for the vertical and horizontal axes of Technology Map.

Third, I have mentioned that the first technical catalog will be published in the summer. I would like to report on the current arrangement of the specific catalog items to be included in the first technical catalog.

The fourth is a report on what specific content will be posted together with the Technology Map and the catalog when they are announced on the Internet, etc., as Digital Agency is required to announce them on the Internet, etc. as needed under the Act on General Provisions of the Civil Code.

Finally, since there are so many stakeholders in Technology Map and catalogs, I would like to report that I would like to establish a consortium to advance the creation work in an agile manner while always having contact with each of them.

First of all, regarding "Progress of the Technology validation Project," on page 6, I reported that there were 1,043 provision out of approximately 10,000 provision that required technology validation last time, and that we were able to summarize them into 14 types. While the number of provision in each ministries and agencies has increased and decreased, we have already written in detail in the first round of specifications for the five types in the red frame, and have conducted a public offering, and we are now at the stage where we will have business operators start specific validation projects. provision

Also, the areas surrounded by a thick blue frame are the regulation Group, the second group, for which coordination with the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation has been completed and which are currently being publicly offered.

Pages 7 and 8 are the outlines of the first type. The first type includes those for which the specifications of Technical validation were prepared the earliest, that is, it was the fastest to verbalize the detailed requirements of regulation. To be specific, Type 3 is Technical validation, which is to use drones, point cloud data, and AI imaging for non-destructive inspection of buildings and structures. Type 6 is to remotely inspect natural objects, natural parks, and the Antarctic environment, not structures.

The next three are validation for remote on-site inspections at the top, validation for browsing regulation at No. 13, and validation for training regulation at No. 14.

Next, in the second category, which is currently under public solicitation, No. 1 is validation on whether or not it is possible to remotely monitor the regulation where surveillance and patrolling are required. No. 7 is validation on whether or not it is possible to remotely substitute on-the-spot surveys using laser surveying.

And on page 10, No. 9 is a validation to see if we can use OCR or AI image analysis to substitute for those that are subjected to completion inspection by looking at drawings, etc. And types 11 and 12 are a validation to see if we can digital completion a regulation that has a full-time resident duty.

The above is the progress of Technology validation to date, and after this, in the third installment, I would like to add more types and work comprehensively.

If you go back to the list on page 6, it will be easier to understand. Originally, I was thinking of Technology validation only for the country, but thankfully, Oita prefecture said that there are needs for Technology regulation in the same way as validation, which is independently operated by the prefecture, and I would like to point out that they have participated in several types. I would be grateful if there would be an increase in local government like this, and I have been talking with various local government, but it seems to be difficult for local government officials to verbalize the content of regulation and incorporate it into the specifications, so at this point, only Oita prefecture has been found. I would like to expand it in the future.

From page 11 on, I would like to talk about Technology Map. On page 13, I am doing trial and error on how to make the vertical and horizontal axes of Technology Map wisely. As for the figure on the left, for example, regulation has a purpose of confirming that it is safe, and the function required for that purpose is to detect abnormalities, and to realize that, as a means, humans are required to perform proximity visual inspection. regulation has such a structure. At present, in Technology Map and catalogs, at least for the lowest means, we would like to validation the possibility of replacing the means by remote operation or digital completion operation, but our intention is to make the structure so that when we go back to the upper stage of the function or the stage of the purpose, we can eventually return to the point where such regulation was necessary in the first place. Therefore, Technology Map will map the means for the time being, but the first conclusion is that it is good to organize them by linking them to the functions and purposes.

On page 14, the horizontal axis of the map shows how to organize. In the original plan, the classification was organized based on the idea that the more you go to the right, the more advanced the technology is and the higher the digital completion is. However, in reality, the classification on the horizontal axis is not so much related to the technology level and the degree of maturity, and there is no place to put the items that extend or eliminate the inspection cycle of the periodic inspection, so it was placed appropriately on the far right. Therefore, we decided to reorganize this. In order to organize the functions to be advanced by technology according to the data flow, we adopted the IPO model and organized them into input, process, and output. In the original organization, "input" is the acquisition of data, as well as the transmission and transmission of the acquired data. Then, the "process" is said to analyze, judge, and diagnose the data originally obtained, but this was divided into recognition, analysis, prediction, and autonomy as judgment functions. Then, finally, as "output," the response to the situation is remote, so it is divided into two functions, one is to move to the site, and the other is to respond at the destination. It has become clear that the horizontal axis seems to be able to be organized neatly.

Next, page 15 is the vertical axis, and the vertical axis is actually still under trial and error, so we are considering several ideas while putting them in and taking them out. I think the next page is very interesting, so I would like to introduce it. In the Digital Rincho, we have about 10,000 provision as a process chart for review with the cooperation of each ministry and agency, but we are doing a complete analysis of them with the great help of MRI, our contractor, and we have come to know that this is the most common structure of regulation.

First of all, regarding regulation, there is a "purpose" at the top, and there is an "object" at the bottom, that is, some physical entity that is the object of inspection, management, and response. In relation to this, the data acquisition body acquires and transmits some data and information, and the judgment body of the destination of the transmission makes some judgments, including whether this is a serious situation or whether it should be left alone. When this judgment is made, it is judged whether there is no problem in light of the regulation purpose. Then, the result is transmitted again, and if it is decided to intervene immediately, the response body moves to respond. It has been found that almost all regulation can be simplified into this structure.

Page 17 shows that some are slightly different. From page 18, I write that we are currently conducting a complete analysis of about 10,000 provision. On page 19, I state that the text does not necessarily describe all the necessary data. Only a part of the purpose, function, and means of regulation are written in regulation, but if you read regulation carefully, you can guess that this must be the case, and that this means is specified for this function. Among them, those close to warm colors such as red on the left side tend to be described at a high percentage at the text level of regulation, and the percentage of description decreases as you go to the right side. As I explained earlier, the horizontal axis is organized by the input, process, and output of the IPO model, but it has become clear that the description of regulation is focused on "what data will be acquired" among what data will be acquired for the target object, who will make decisions on it, and how to respond to it.

Pages 20 and 21 are based on trial and error to determine how to structure the vertical axis of Technology Map based on the above knowledge. Proposal 1 is classified in the order of what data needs to be collected for judgment and response, and the target object. Proposal 2 is based on trial and error to determine whether the technology can be mapped well by writing the target object first and sorting it into what situation data is to be collected.

On page 22, regarding Technology Map, there is a limit to the extent to which we can take responsibility, so we will thoroughly organize the Code of Conduct and prepare explanations for each stakeholder who uses it.

On page 23, this is also a point that was pointed out very often by the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee. I would like you to refer to the guidelines that have already been issued, and there are several guidelines that should be followed, so I have started to organize them by attaching links to them.

From page 24 is the Technology Catalog. The "Catalog Item Proposal" continues on pages 25 and 26. By reducing the number of essential items to be included as much as possible, we would like to make arrangements so that even start-up companies and companies without achievements can list their products and services in the catalog.

On the other hand, we would like the information posted here to be directly referred to by ministries and agencies under the jurisdiction of regulation and business operators who comply with regulation in the future and be connected to procurement, so we have organized the information that is directly connected to it to the extent possible for reference.

On page 27, the biggest issue was information on products and services before the start of service. There are cases that have actually been submitted in advance public offering, and this is valuable information, but if it is included in the catalog, it will cause misunderstanding because procurement has not yet been made. Although it will not be directly included in the technology catalog, information that such products and services are scheduled to start service later will be displayed on the map while being linked to the technology maturity level. The conclusion is that we will make it possible to grasp the potential of the technology areas that are likely to appear in Technology Map.

From page 28, I would like to start the next public offering of catalogs. The first public offering of catalogs will be held under the theme of digital completion for lectures and examinations, and the second will be for visiting and public inspection. We are discussing how much we should listen to the catalogs from the perspective of economic security, and as soon as we reach a conclusion, we will start the second public offering around the middle of August.

From page 29, we have posted an image of the application format when making a public offering for visiting inspection.

From page 37 on, we will talk about the portal site. We have already organized our ideas about the map and catalog to some extent, so we will publish them on the portal site. At the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee, we have received discussions that we would like to make it more than just a map and catalog. We would like to make it more user-friendly and rich in peripheral information.

On page 40, we are planning to prepare a technical explanation article. For example, we plan to publish an article that clearly records what was difficult when the Technical validation was specifically implemented and what was the final decision point.

Page 41 is a report that we have started to build in the terms of use by lawyers. Pages 42 and 43 are images of the terms of use.

Finally, I would like to talk about the Consortium. On page 45, the Consortium was originally conceived to create a community in which various organizations can be organically connected so that they can tell us that technology is hot these days in cooperation with technology holding organizations, ministries and agencies responsible for regulation, and organizations subject to regulation. On page 46, we are thinking of receiving proposals for information on technology and providing them from us. We hope that the parties concerned will be networked in line with the review of regulations on paper and in-person processes, and that we will be able to build a relationship in which mutual dialogue can proceed without us being in between.

Finally, I would like to continuously provide opportunities for learning among related parties. On page 47, various stakeholders are placed on the side, and the schedule and items of programs we are considering are listed vertically. We would like to sequentially prepare and provide "RegTech Day," an event that doubles as a briefing session in which each player can be involved in various ways, Pitch Con testing, study sessions, workshops, and matching events.

That's all for your report.

Deputy Chairman: , thank you very much. If you have any comments or questions about the explanation just given, please feel free to ask. Mr. Uenoyama, please.

Member Uenoyama: Thank you, I think it is very interesting, and I would like to comment on the vertical and horizontal axes. First of all, the horizontal axis should be tuned gradually without any sense of incongruity. I think the vertical axis is exactly difficult, and there are various ideas, but first of all, the first message is that it is not necessary to uniquely determine the vertical axis, so I think it is better to switch between multiple axes.

Now, in terms of what axes we should write more than one, there are three ideas. The slashes 1 and 2 in 1 are both located. First of all, the purpose of the vertical axis is to rotate around the MRI. I think you have come to understand that the main purpose is to sense the OB line and to make a certain intervention. So, in how to describe the ontology of purpose, which is a specific version of this, I think that the first vertical axis is to write about the object axis and the axis that there is a type of regulation when humans see it.

In addition, 1 is written in an axis like the feasibility as of 2023. What he is saying is that basically, the density of the degree to which technology replaces what people have been doing until now appears in this vertical and horizontal map. At that time, what is done is mapped up, and what is not done is mapped down, and if the square is shown as a half triangle, what has been automated and what is still difficult will become clear at a glance. This is one way of describing.

The other is to write from the user's point of view. Maps are complicated, so when you look at a map and don't know where to look, the vertical axis is used by people with various stakeholders. Mr. A looks at the second block, and other organizations look at the third block. I think it is possible to put the vertical axis that is calculated backward from the user.

In any case, when we want various people to use this Technology Map, there is probably no need to have only one vertical axis, and it is good to switch to various axes and increase the number of people involved. This is the main message.

I think this is a story in which you can drill down by clicking inside the map, and since the completed form of this cannot be written uniquely, it is an image in which various people write comments like a web service here, and it moves more and more dynamically. It seems difficult to make it, so I hesitate to say it, but I think it would be great if we could make a implementation that can be rotated like a web service.

The main message was the comment that I felt it was important to make the first vertical axis a double line and place multiple lines.

Deputy Chairman: . Regarding the second part of the main message, which is about half of what has been realized in 2023, and how to take the vertical axis, there is the concept of TRL, technological maturity, which is already mentioned in this document. Is it the same thing or different thing?

Member Uenoyama: Thank you, You also have that stem.

Deputy Chairman:

I came here because I felt that Mr. Uenoyama was not talking about 80% maturity within a certain frame.

Member Uenoyama: Thank you, . I looked into it and found that there are two ways to measure the maturity of technology in the first place, and I think that the software depends on TRL and another use cases, so I think it is another thing.

Deputy Chairman: . Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you, Thank you very much. It was quite structured, and I thought it was very wonderful.

In structuring, it is quite amazing just to structure the content that has already been on the agenda. I think other themes will also come up, and although there is actually a way to make it, in the start-up innovation of the regulatory reform Promotion Council, we have been discussing how to make certification and models flexible to some extent according to changes in times and technology. Although it has not been summarized in the written opinion, such a frame has been created in the report. I think that the agenda itself, which can be turned over in this way, will increase in the future, and I would like you to work on such points.

In addition, in the Technology Catalog initiative, the cooperation with Public procurement is also specified to some extent on page 29, such as input items, and I believe that the cooperation with Public procurement is also being carried out. I believe that the reform of Digital Marketplace and Public procurement will be carried out as needed, so I hope that the experience on our side will lead to the review of Public procurement and the improvement of procurement business. Since there are discussions to review the relationship between the national and local governments, I believe that it is not limited to having local governments procurement all of them, but I hope that the cooperation will lead to the improvement of procurement business.

Deputy Chairman: . Member Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: Thank you very much, is making great progress. As Mr. Ochiai said, I think it is a great achievement that the visualization of what the conventional regulation was doing in the end has been done structurally to a considerable extent. Moreover, I think it is great that it has been compiled into a number of types that can be properly grasped.

If such a methodology works well, as you introduced about the consortium, I think it will be led by private sector, and ideas from private sector will be reflected in regulation more and more, which will bring us closer to the world of the idea we call agile governance. By doing so, we would like to realize a world in which innovation and risk are properly managed, so I would like you to continue as it is.

On the other hand, regarding the standards for posting, I am concerned about the standards for screening what kind of technology can be posted and what the hurdles will be. I think it is related to the issue of how to solve the trade-off between having new companies join as much as possible and imposing high hurdles for entry for safety. I was thinking while asking how to set the standards. I would like to ask what kind of discussion there will be on these points at this stage.

Another point is that if a small company comes in and uses something with trust in the content, and an accident actually occurs, I feel that the problem of whether the company alone can compensate for the damage in that part will come up in the end.

In other words, even if a new company is sincerely development and mounting the technology and wants it to be used, I think it is a waste if people who use it think that they are too scared to use it because they have suffered a loss and could not recover it in the end if something happens. I had an image that the Technology Map and catalog will be improved if there is discussion about using the compulsory insurance system or preparing a public loss guarantee system. If there is any discussion about this point, I would like to know about it.

Deputy Chairman: , Counselor, please.

Secretariat (Suga): In relation to the points pointed out by Dr. Ochiai First of all, the question by the Inadani members about what will be included in the catalog is a question that strikes the essence. First of all, regarding the catalog, as Mr. Ochiai pointed out, I believe that the outer edge will be determined to some extent by the fact that we want it to be directly connected to procurement. It is important that government procurement will be included in the main body of procurement, and for that reason, the regulation authorities have provided technical validation. In relation to what regulation requires, we would like to receive a broad guarantee that sufficient accuracy will be obtained, but on the other hand, Digital Agency cannot cover all the costs in the event of an incident there. Whether or not to introduce it is up to you, but at least we would like to secure it at the catalog level if it is a commercialized service or product that can be used.

Before that, I would like you to look at the map to be able to understand the information about promising technologies that are still under testing and are scheduled for market-oriented in two to three years. Based on this, I would like the regulation authorities to prepare in anticipation of this, but it is actually desirable that regulation will be able to take measures to some extent by the time the technologies market-oriented, so I would be grateful if we could make such a back-and-forth. The method of creating the convention is the most important point discussed by the technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee. You mentioned insurance as a keyword, but I would like to deepen the discussion a little later.

Inadani Member: Thank you very much, .

Secretariat (Suga): In relation to the points pointed out by Dr. Ochiai , please take a look at the second item of the proposed structure of Technology Map. There is a green item called regulation Typology in the second from the left, but if you look closely, there are more items than the seven types of regulations on paper and in-person processes that we have taken up in the Digital Rincho. In other words, when we had about 10,000 provision analyzed by MRI, there were seven keywords that we captured, but in fact, categories that can be captured by other keywords can be seen through, and if we organize them without being bound by the wording again, it will be like this. We were troubled by the lack of coverage in the seven items, but in fact, it is possible that quite a few other parts can be captured at the same time, and I think it is interesting.

In the talk about making the map intelligent that Mr. Uenoyama pointed out, the members of the technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee are all very skilled in such things. There is a big idea that if you select the vertical and horizontal directions by yourself, the map will be automatically generated, or various people will write down comments on this technology.

However, as is the case with the Digital Marketplace of the Government of procurement, there is a tradeoff between how much money can be spent to create the Internet interface that Digital Agency can provide. The Digital Agency website is made very simple, so in relation to this, we will determine how many functions will be expanded by when. At first, it may be too simple, but at this point, I would like to reach an agreement while aiming to provide intelligent and rich content that is easy to use.

The three vertical axes proposed by Member Uenoyama are certainly arranged in terms of the digital completion degree in the lower two cross-sections in 2023 or 2024. It is a very interesting idea, so I would like to consider it at the Secretariat. Thank you very much.

Deputy Chairman: . Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you, .

I was just given an explanation by Mr. Suga, and I thought that was exactly the case. I don't think that the rules and regulations are limited to guarantees and promises. For example, I am working on a voluntary regulation organization in the Bank API. In that case, I ask you to confirm what has been confirmed by what process, for example, by the auditing procedures agreed upon by the auditing firm, and I can confirm what has been confirmed by each bank at the same time for 100 banks. The term "representation and guarantee" is also in law, but I think that reliability can be increased to a certain extent not only by guarantee but also by representation. Guarantees and promises are heavy, so I think that there is room to limit them. On the other hand, even if Inadani members are covered by the insurance that has been pointed out, I think that it is good to consider the damage to that part if insurance can be used, so I thought that there is a way to consider it separately.

It is very wonderful that the type of Technology Map has been divided into subcategories, but in addition, if you reduce the framework of inspection and inspection to an action and write it in terms of words that describe the action, I feel that parts that can be used as materials for digital regulatory reform will be collected. At this point, I think it will not be difficult for those who have done this to write an abstraction of the action of the content. If you do so, I thought that there will be more materials, so it will be more advanced.

Deputy Chairman: . Finally, I would like to have a few words from Senior Vice-Minister Okushi.

Senior Vice-Minister for Digital Okushi: , I would like to thank all of our members today. I am very sorry to participate from the middle of the meeting, but I have heard that in the "Base Registry and Institutional Issue" section at the beginning, "Systems Related to public authorities information linkages", we received your opinions on institutional Issue, such as those related to the personal data Protection Act. Based on your opinions, we will closely cooperate with related organizations and thoroughly discuss the systems toward the end of the year.

Next, in base registry for address, the Secretariat presented the current situation, goal and Issue, and then Yamato Transport Co., Ltd. and Linaf Co., Ltd. announced the needs of private business. I thought it would be very difficult, but I also received many suggestions. Based on these opinions, we will discuss the realization of the system at the next Working Group.

As for technology-based regulatory reform, based on the content of today's discussion, this summer we will formulate and publish a Technology Map and technology catalog with high convenience and utilization potential.

In addition, regarding the Technology validation Project, we will implement it in cooperation with each government agency and business operators who possess the technology, and by widely sharing and utilizing the results, such as reflecting them in the Technology Map, we will promote autonomous and continuous review of the regulation and effective utilization of technology based on the progress of digital technology.

Thank you very much for your time today. We look forward to working with you in the future.

Deputy Chairman: . Now, the Secretariat will explain about the holding of the next Working Group meeting.

Secretariat (Mimura): This is the Secretariat. Thank you for your time today.

Finally, I would like to explain about the holding of the next Working Group. Please note that the Secretariat will contact you later about the details of the next Working Group.

As for today's agenda, if you do not have any objections to the "Systems related to Issue between public authorities" in Agenda 1 "Base Registry and Institutional information linkages", we would like to keep it closed to the public. As for the other parts, we would like to prepare the minutes later and make them public after everyone checks them.

In addition, with regard to the treatment of today's materials, we would like to disclose them on the public authorities website, except for the material on "Systems related to information linkages between Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee" in Agenda 1.

Thank you for joining us today.

Deputy Chairman: I would now like to conclude the twenty second session of the Conference. Thank you very much.