Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group (18th meeting)

Overview

Date and Time: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 (2023) from 10:00 to 12:00
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. How to proceed with "Technology-based regulatory reform" for the time being
  2. Status of consideration of the "Basic Concept on digitalization of Disposition Notices, etc. (Draft)"
  3. On base registry for companies and Institutional Issue
  4. Exchange of opinions
3. Adjournment

Materials

Minutes, etc.

Date

Wednesday, February 22, 2023 (2023), from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 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)
IWAMURA Arihiro (Managing Director, Japan Business Federation)
Katsuya Uenoyama (President of PKSHA Technology, Inc.)
Takafumi Ochiai (Attorney at law, Atsumi & Sakai, Foreign Law Joint Enterprise)
Masakazu Masushima (Attorney-at-Law, Mori Hamada & Matsumoto)

Minutes

Secretariat (Matsuda): Digital Ad Hoc Working Group. I look forward to working with you today.

Members are invited to participate online this time as well. With regard to the attendance status of the members today, I have heard that Mr. Sugawara is absent due to personal reasons.
Although it is immediate, I would like to start the agenda now.
I would like to ask Mr. Annen, Vice Chairman, to proceed with the following agenda. Mr. Annen, Vice Chairman, please.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th . Let's get down to business.
The proceedings of the 18th session of the Working Party are as follows.

I would like to make the following three inquiries: (1) "How to proceed with' Technology-based regulatory reform' for the time being," (2) "Status of consideration of' Basic Concept (Draft) on digitalization, such as Disposition Notice,'" and (3) "base registry for companies and Institutional Issue."

First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Suga to explain how to proceed with the "technology-based regulatory reform" for the time being.

Secretariat (Suga): Good morning. This is Suga.
I would like to start by explaining. Under the Working Group, the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee has been established and has held four meetings to date.

Regarding the proceedings so far, at the second meeting, we had discussions on what kind of information should be included in Technology Map, what kind of target areas and what kind of process should be followed, etc. At the third meeting, we had intensive discussions on how to ensure the Trust of information to be included in Technology Map and the confirmation of the accuracy of the information. Recently, at the fourth meeting this month, we reported on the positioning of Technology Map in the package law to be deliberated by the Diet, and reported and consulted on how to proceed with the technology validation of each ministry, which will be compiled horizontally in the budget project of the Digital Consultation from April this year.

First, regarding the positioning of Technology Map in the omnibus law, we are planning to take measures to provide for the effective use of digital technologies by the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation and local governments based on Technology Map and other regions. It is necessary to clarify the specific extension of Technology Map referred to in the law, so the committee approved it on page 5. We have defined Technology Map as "a visualization after sorting out the correspondence between the types of and the technologies that can be used for the review," and positioned ourselves to support the review of regulation by referring to the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation and local governments. Regarding the components of Technology Map in the narrow sense at this time, the vertical axis is the type of regulation, and the horizontal axis is divided into phases 1, 2, and 3 depending on how much machine automation is allowed by regulation. At the center of the map, we have placed representative technologies that can be used for transition in the next phase. In addition, we need to position this map as reference information, and attach some disclaimer including responsibilities and restrictions. First of all, we would like to position Technology Map in the narrow sense. regulations on paper and in-person processes

On the other hand, there are various elements in the broad sense of "Technology Map" discussed by the Committee. In addition to the static table shown on the far left side of page 6, we will register in the form of a technology catalog, including information from technology holders on, for example, cameras and sensors, what specific products and services drones has, and what performances have been confirmed. In addition, when using technology, we will introduce information to be referred to before using it in the form of guidelines and guidebooks, including such limitations of AI and the limit of angle of view of cameras. In addition, as a technical explanation article, if you have time, the sample article submitted to the members of the Technology Committee last time was very popular, so I would like you to take a look at it, too. We will prepare several articles to deepen your understanding of the technology by openly describing the results and characteristics of the actual trials of the technology shown in the catalog.

In addition, we will thoroughly develop terms of use and manuals for the entire map and catalog. What is important is the purple column at the top. On the left side, Technology Map in the narrow sense, Digital Agency needs to formulate and disclose information based on laws and regulations responsibly. Regarding the ecosystem of the entire Technology Map, we would like to enrich the ecosystem by accepting information from technology-possessing companies, ministries and agencies, organizations, and individuals in charge of the regulation as needed.

That was the discussion in relation to the lump-sum method. After this, we will report on the preparation for the implementation of the technology validation.

There are two perspectives. First of all, I would like to report on how the ministries and agencies in charge of the regulation are preparing for the Technology validation, and what the companies possessing the technology are doing.

First of all, the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation. As I reported at the previous meeting, we have finalized a road map for approximately 10,000 provision. Among them, 1,043 provision is said to "require technology validation." When we have a separate dialogue with the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation, we will review them according to the road map, but they honestly say that they do not know whether there is any applicable technology in the first place and that they lack knowledge. When applied to the type of regulation, the majority of these 1,043 provision are visual inspection and periodic inspections, but they are widely covered across 14 ministries and agencies.

Next, the approach from the company side. In the Technology Committee, it is rare for the ministries and agencies in charge of the regulation to come up with the idea that they should be able to use such technology themselves. Companies with technology should know the needs most, such as if they use this technology, they do not need this regulation, and if they change the regulation, the technology will spread further. Therefore, we received a proposal to listen to this, and we issued a request for the provision of technology called RFI in the form of a public offering. It was a little less than one month, but thankfully we received information from 72 companies over 347. The content of the technology is also very diverse. When classified into regulation types, compared to the biased ministries and agencies in charge of the regulation, we received proposals across various types.

A typical example is shown on page 13. We have received a lot of very useful information, such as that if you use a solution for secret calculation, you can further improve your privacy, that drones can be used for inspection of things that can fly continuously in water and space, and that you can use satellite data.

Based on the above, as for the next page, I understand that just reflecting the information on the nearly 350 cases we have received at this point in time in the map is likely to result in additional red ink, and I would like to operate the map in a way that rapidly updates regulation while skillfully circulating information between the ministries and agencies responsible for Technology Map and companies.
After these warm-ups, from the next page, we will report that the Technology validation Project will finally begin in April.

Page 17 is the list of current technical validation projects. The preceding seven items are categorized into very specific types such as visual inspection. To abstract this one step further, on the left side, there are many types of regulation that want information to be diagnosed or judged based on information. In addition, it is understood that there are types of regulation that want information to be made known, conveyed, made public, submitted, and accepted. In terms of safety judgment, it is possible to classify what is to be observed, such as whether the movement of people or things is dangerous, whether there is no damage or deficiency, and whether the structure and design are safe. In addition, in order to confirm what is to be observed, it is possible to classify what is to be observed, such as whether the visual inspection or inspection is to be performed on a section or area, facility or equipment, or data. regulation

In that case, if we look at what types of types can be created by specific technology validation, in fact, the 1,043 provision can be roughly divided into 14 types at this point.

From the following pages, I will introduce each of these. I do not have time today, so it is difficult to explain all of them, but if you are interested, I would like you to take a look at them. Each of the 14 Technology validation projects is linked to the regulation provision that each ministry has out of 1,043, and only the projects that have been coordinated by each ministry so far are counted as the number, so the total is not yet 1,043, but at this point, this amount of linkage has already been completed, and I am relieved to know that it is meaningful to implement cross-sectional validation in a large block.

From page 18, there is a list of 14 technical validation projects. If I were to introduce only the first one, it would be possible to demonstrate whether it is possible to remotely or mechanically monitor a place where people were monitoring by using drones and image analysis technology. Here, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of the Environment's "Ministerial Ordinance Specifying the Technical Standards for Structures, etc. Used in Mining" and the "Ordinance for Enforcement of the Natural Parks Act" are linked as regulation that have the same type of validation needs, although they seem to be completely different provision at first glance. There are regulation where guards are always stationed and regulation where staff members patrol. In response, we will use drones, cameras, sensors, GPS, remote sensing systems, etc., to check whether it is possible to substitute people with machines for patrols to grasp the presence or absence of abnormalities. If we can confirm that such technology can be used, there is a possibility that we can go from Phase 1 to Phase 2 or from Phase 2 to Phase 3. We will confirm on the technical validation whether it is possible to specify the presence or absence and content of this abnormality, and whether it is possible to immediately intervene if an abnormality is observed.

From here on, the validation projects are continuing in order, so I will omit the explanation due to the time. As for the future schedule on the last page, regarding the 14 types I explained earlier, we will first invite applications from the public for an administration office to conduct the validation project and make a decision around April. Then, we will conduct a specific technology validation and make a testing on whether or not the technology can be substituted. Therefore, we will invite applications from the public for such business operators, and I would like to formulate and publish the first version of the Technology Map by around summer this year, including those that do not seem to require a technology validation and those that can be listed in the map immediately. Along with that, I would like to sequentially formulate and publish the first version of the technology catalog.

The first operator of the Technology validation will be decided around summer, and I believe the earliest cycle will be around winter this year or later, but I would like to compile and announce the results of the Technology validation. Since it is a budget project, we are currently preparing to go as far as we can in a one year cycle.

It's brief, but that's all from me.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th Thank you very much.

I would like to ask for your opinions and questions about the explanation just now, but I feel that we are achieving great results. In particular, it is crucially important to abstract and conceptualize detailed projects, and we are achieving that. One more thing, I read Noboru-san's technical explanation article, and it is amazing. Did you make that yourself?

Secretariat (Suga): was wonderful and asked me to write a sample for others, so if I went to a place where others could not imitate, it would not be an example, so I asked him to create the article by limiting himself to using only one week.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th I thought it was just an instruction manual, but regarding fraud prevention in computer-based testing, doesn't it start with what testing is? That's amazing.

Secretariat (Suga): account for the pre-solicitation of applications for the digitalization Test and Course testing, and Noboru used it. In the first place, we started with what regulation should check, and we asked him to try various ways to detect fraud, and he made it with a limit of two days for checking and five days for writing an article based on the results. The members of the committee were surprised at the quality of it.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th That's amazing. I'm surprised.
First, Dr. Ochiai, I'm sorry to have kept you waiting.

Ochiai Member: Thank you, Thank you for your explanation.
I also believe that this is a wonderful initiative. I also explain this when I give lectures overseas, and if I do so, there are many people who take pictures of me, and in the subsequent questions and answers, for example, in the case of finance, I feel that it is closer to smart cities than to finance, but even so, it is quite exciting to hear that this kind of initiative is being made. I believe that this contributes to digitalization, which is a field in which I am naturally strong, and when I speak to foreign countries, I think that the content is such that I can say that we are responding properly. First of all, I think that this is very wonderful.

In that sense, it may be difficult to translate all the sentences into English, but I thought it would be good for the overall promotion of industry in Japan in many ways if the Digi-Cho made public what the Government of Japan is doing in this regard.

The second point is that as Technology Map is being analyzed more and more, I think it will gradually become clear that regulation can be corrected by combining these parts. I think it is important to constantly improve regulation by going back and forth, so I think it is better to use Technology Map to show what can be revised, and to proceed with the content of digital regulatory reform and the use of technology in tandem. I think it will be very effective.

Once again, if this initiative continues, I feel that this initiative may be more important than Digital regulatory reform itself, so thank you very much for your cooperation. I look forward to further cooperation in the future.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .
Let's make it into English quickly with MT.

Secretariat (Suga): Certainly, it would be nice if it could be done automatically.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th Legtech as well.

Ochiai Member: Thank you, That's right. If at least the landing page is hooked, I think you can read it by saying that there is only a part of the content in English and there is also a Japanese side by side. Recently, when I see French things such as the personal data Protection Act, if I can go part of the way in English, I sometimes find French things and force myself to read them, so I think it would be good to be like that. Thank you very much.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th . I think Mr. Ochiai is probably the same, but I'm getting excited listening to your story. It's really amazing.
What about the other teachers?

Then, please go in the order of Mr. Masushima, Mr. Uenoyama, and Mr. Inadani.

Masujima Member: Thank you very much for Thank you very much.

The efforts went very well, and we were able to narrow down the number to 14. I was looking at it because I thought the pattern was being organized.

In relation to marketing, when the RFI program was implemented, several start-ups came to us and asked us what we should do about it. Of course, we asked everyone to write about it because there are such good things to be done by answering it. In the RFI program, there are many regulation, and we asked you to tell us where you can use your technology. There are many articles written, and we asked which article we can use it for. I thought we had to look at each article, and maybe the secretariat or the public office side wanted to know which technology exactly corresponds to this, so it seems that it came as it was, but from the side that actually answers, it is extremely difficult to answer, so I felt that some companies might have hesitated and thought it was good because they didn't know well what to do. The classification of visit is written, but if you have to look at each one, it is a bit difficult. I said that if you submit it, the secretariat will check it for you, so it is okay. I said that if you submit all of your technology, you should submit it to the visiting side, or you should submit it to the monitoring side, so it is okay. I asked them to submit it, but I felt that if we could improve the way of communication with the private sector side, the submission rate would increase. That is one thing.

In addition, as you may recall, Mr. Kobayashi said that we would like to export our products overseas, and he said that we should carefully consider the timing. I think he had a big strategy of promoting institutional reform, technology, and industry together by going to a showcase in Japan where the technology is in place. I thought it would be good if you could strategically export your products while taking this into consideration.
That's all.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .

Then, because of the time, I would like to have Mr. Uenoyama and Mr. Inadani speak in this order, and if you have time, I would like to have Mr. Suga make a comment again. Thank you.

Uenoyama Member: This is Uenoyama .

I would like to make a few points. First of all, I think the slide on page 17 is very impressive. I feel very strongly that the fact that law and technology are moderately abstracted, structured, corresponded, and changed has begun to move. I think this is a really wonderful story, and I hope that we can continue to advance this.

In order to make this initiative even more impactful, I would like to make two comments on what will be discussed in the future. The first is that abstraction and structuring, Technology Map, for example, will naturally take on a slightly different form in five years from now. In order to keep Technology Map and this field busy, I believe that we are now in the start-up phase and satellite networks are gathering together. Basically, when we have to design a constant system that will continue to be brushed up dynamically, I think it will be more interesting to think about who will be working and how they will be working in one or two years.

However, in any case, discussing whether or not this is the case while discussing this document itself will bridge the gap between law and technology, and I think it will become a process in which the technical literacy of the people involved in this will improve. So, I think it will be very interesting to consider this as the center of the vortex.

The second point is more realistic, but I believe that the validation of technology is currently being implemented, and if this continues to advance, there will be more and more talks about whether this can be done or not, and then introducing this. At that time, it will be a very big story, but it is one of the Issue of the entire Japanese software industry, and it is very important what kind of charging method and incentive structure this technology can be introduced in, and whether or not the technology will be polished every day as a price form according to value is actually very good if it can be validation, and whether or not the price is based on value, how much it can be done, and whether or not the money will be paid, may not have been mentioned here yet, but I think it will be really important whether or not the money incentive design will be well applied when it is actually introduced, and I understand that I am saying very difficult things, but I feel that if these two points are applied, this will really function as a new governance mechanism, so in any case, I would like to say these two points greedily.

That's all.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .
The story of incentives also appeared in today's materials. Let's deepen it.
Mr. Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani .

To be honest, I am also very excited. In the third or fourth session of the Working Group, I believe that various examples related to this theme were presented. At that time, from the perspective shown on page 17, I think that we were talking about moving forward in a new direction by creating the essence of what we wanted to do in the end in regulation, and advancing the validation of what can and cannot be done with technology. I am deeply moved that we are moving in that direction. I truly believe that this part should proceed as it is.

In proceeding with this, in connection with what Dr. Masushima and Dr. Ochiai have already said, I believe that there will inevitably be a situation in which we will quantify what we ultimately wanted to realize with the law in advancing technological substitution.

Therefore, if possible, I would like to see the visualization of cost-benefit and the development of an argumentation framework that can promote EBPM at the same time. The reason is that when this argumentation framework is established and widely shared in private sector, it can of course be diverted to other regulation, but from the perspective of companies, if we use such indicators and guidelines, I think it will lead to proposals that we may be able to substitute them with such new technologies. By creating a synergistic effect between the commentary articles and this framework, companies will be able to propose ways that they can do things in this way, or they will be able to propose ways that are different from those of regulation. I think this will be a trigger for the social implementation of so-called agile governance to move forward in earnest.

Therefore, I believe that the fact that we will proceed with this will be related to Dr. Ochiai's recent story that the technology-based system may be the main body, but as this progresses, I believe that the structure of regulation up to now, or the governance structure itself, may change. Therefore, I would like to ask you to proceed with this.

However, when I think about it, I think there will be one more point in the future. In that case, which is related to the question of who will turn this cycle, I think the question of who will be the main body of regulation will be a very important issue. In other words, I think the question of who will guarantee the legitimacy and appropriateness of regulation will come up. Therefore, I think that it is also related to the problem of Trust of technology, but I think it is an ideal form to promote it in the form of peer reviews. At the same time, I think it is important to secure that part by properly implementation certain systems related to accountability.

Furthermore, if we prepare a mechanism that links the disclaimer part with systems related to this Trust and accountability, we will be able to promote governance with a higher degree of legitimacy with a sense of security from the perspective of companies, and we will be able to use technology to advance governance in the best form. I feel that I am saying a lot of greedy things, but if you aim to achieve such a thing in the future, I believe it will be a revolutionary reform that is truly world-leading, so I would like you to proceed with it.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .
What do you think, Mr. Suga?

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much. As you can imagine, we have finally come to this point while our heads are about to boil, and I think you have raised the bar in the right way again, so I would like to go in the direction you pointed out.

As for communication with private sector companies, as shown in the materials on page 17, I think it would have been better if we could have presented at least this type of communication in advance and invited public participation, and I would like to improve that, including the method.

In addition, regarding the form of procurement, the Technology Committee pointed out that it is important to continue charging. Discussions on the Digital Marketplace have begun separately at the Digi-cho, and we have received opinions on the integration of such places, so I hope we can follow up on that.

In addition, Mr. Shimada of TOSHIBA pointed out the cost effectiveness. Regarding whether or not the cost effectiveness was confirmed when replacing it with technology, private sector is sure to do so, so I was told to do so by the Digi-cho. I would like to do so firmly, and I would like to proceed with the vision that it will eventually spread to the issue of governance structure. I would like to receive your advice at important points. Thank you very much.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .

Not limited to this issue, but due to time constraints, if you have any further comments or questions, please send them to the Secretariat by email or other means.

Next, I would like to ask Mr. Yamano to explain the status of consideration of the "Basic Concept (Draft) on digitalization, such as Disposition Notices."

Mr. Yamano: I'm Yamano . Nice to meet you.

Among the Digital Principles, the Principles for Automated digital completion Procedures call for end-to-end digitalization of procedures and other matters. However, I believe that digitalization of the notification of disposition, etc. under Article 7, Paragraph (1) of the so-called Digital Procedure Act has not yet progressed. Of course, digitalization is possible, and the method is specified by the ordinance of the competent ministries, but it is my recognition that there are still obstacles.

We are a team in charge of permission, etc. based on the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, and we would like to explain the current status of consideration of the current efforts, etc. regarding the contents that we have examined in a separate track, so we would appreciate if you could give us your opinions.

First of all, regarding today's content, I would like to briefly introduce the positioning of the basic concept that we are considering. As stated on page 1, the purpose of the study is for Digital Agency to organize and disclose to the relevant public authorities, including the relevant ministries and local local government, the common concept that can be referred to in daily business and the method of responding to Issue.

As for (ii), in the short term, to put it differently, we would like to sort out cases that can be dealt with with relatively low hurdles, and have related ministries and agencies and people in local government use them according to their business practices. After that, we would like to solve problems in the short term and promote digitalization.

Finally, No. 3. This is the future process. Digital Agency has formulated a set of digital society Promotion Standard Guidelines. There are two types of guidelines, the normative and the indicative. This time, we are considering an indicative set of practical reference materials and reference documents. We plan to publish them after they are authorized by the end of this fiscal year so that they can be used as information. There is a Technical Review Meeting in Digital Agency, so it is planned to finalize and publish them as standard documents. At present, we are planning to publish them under the title of "digital society Promotion Practical Guidebook," which I think will be the first set.

I would like to introduce two pieces of background. Page 2 is based on the inventory survey of administrative procedures announced at the end of March 2021, the year before last. While 70 to 80 percent of the applicants to public authorities are online, about 20 percent of the notifications from the administrative side and notifications of disciplinary actions are online on a business basis, and there is still room for online implementation.

Our team, which is in charge of Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act in Digital Agency, has received many practical inquiries and questions from local local government and others about whether it is okay to send them in PDF using electronic signatures. The problem is that the procedures for those who come here are progressing, but the procedures for those who submit them are not.

As for the second part of the background, on page 3, there is a tabulation of the policies for making administrative procedures online, which is published by the person in charge of regulation in the Cabinet Office. There are about 21000 types of procedures in total, but as I believe it was at the end of March 2021, about 9,000 procedures have been made online, and the remaining half are still to be completed.

As for the main procedures, we will use e-mail and the existing system to gradually respond to online access, so I believe it is effective to have materials that can be referenced by relevant ministries and agencies, including local government, in areas with high needs, such as those used here. I believe it is important to make materials that are fairly grounded.

In closing, I would like to briefly introduce our efforts so far. On page 4, it is stated that we will first proceed with the consideration of the digitalization of the notification of disposition among the Priority plan of last year formulated by Digital Agency. Based on that, we have formed a sub-working group under the Data Strategy Promotion Working Group and have been advancing the consideration for a little less than one year. We have had discussions on securing a wide range of Trust, and among them, a multi-stakeholder model in which people concerned gather and exchange opinions actively should be created, and the consideration of the digitalization of the notification of disposition should be advanced, as summarized in the report. This was last summer.

Based on this, we actually rotated the multi-stakeholder model. It was a forum where stakeholders could discuss 24 hours a day using Slack. In December last year, the participants of the multi-stakeholder model compiled a report and submitted it. It was also published on our website at the end of last year. In this report, the direction and Issue of consideration, including the utilization of electronic signatures, are shown.

Based on this, we will first create a draft basic concept by compiling a common concept and a response method that will serve as a reference, focusing on short-term responses. As I stated at the beginning, it is scheduled to be formulated as one of a group of informative guidelines at the end of March, and we are currently making final arrangements.

As for the current plan, it is like a table of contents on page 5. We are thinking about it in a way that is fairly broad and easy to understand from the basics. Today, I would like to introduce only some main points.

First of all, regarding the relationship with the Digital Principles, which is the second item on page 6, this is also an end-to-end digitalization, and the digitalization of applications and other matters is being advanced toward the end of the twenty twenty-five, and in addition, the documents are being prepared based on the major premise that it is important to advance the digitalization of administrative notifications of disciplinary actions.

Also, at the bottom is the interpretation of the ordinance of the competent ministries, etc. This is also written with a considerable amount of space. What this is about is that based on the digital method, each ministry and agency specifies in the ordinance of the competent ministries that you should make a digitalization like this, you can do this, and in such a case, you should do it like this. For example, although it is underlined, E-Certificate, electronic data processing organization, and systems are written in legal documents, but regarding these provisions, individual procedures and the responses of each ordinance of the competent ministries, which are the basis for these procedures, are not necessarily unified among ministries and agencies, and local governments, in particular, has expressed the opinion that one of the hurdles for digitalization is that it is difficult to make decisions on, for example, the treatment of E-Certificate. In addition, there are opinions that it would be appreciated if there were materials that could be referenced, so basically, we would like to show a certain interpretation this time.

For example, it is possible to use electronic signatures based on the position of responsibility, and it is also possible to send a digitalization notice by e-mail unless otherwise specified by the ordinance of the competent minister, and this is the point to be noted in this case. We will show our interpretation while presenting specific cases.

On page 7, it says "New and short-term implementation methods," but it simply explains that it is good to do things like this for those that have not made a digitalization yet.

First of all, although it is at the top, in the case of short-term responses, it is summarized that (I), (ii), and (iii), which are at the bottom of digitalization's priorities, should be utilized as necessary.

Regarding (1), the existing system should be used. In particular, if there are many users, and from the viewpoint of convenience, the first step is to use an existing system that can handle the entire process from application to notification of disposition. For example, it is better to use the notification function of Mynaportal, jGrants, or an existing system owned by each ministry and agency.

In addition, as mentioned in (ii), of course, after sufficient information security is secured, for example, online storage can be used, and direct e-mail or PDF can be encrypted in some way and sent with a password or other necessary information. This is the next step.

Regarding electronic signatures in (iii), it is said that electronic signatures should be used when third parties are required to be able to make a validation for the issuer, and when proof of the issuer and guarantee of completeness are considered to be necessary. However, electronic signatures are only one method of proof of the document creator and guarantee of completeness, and are not necessary for all documents. Depending on the local government, there are many examples of using electronic signatures instead of official seals, but the omission of official seals has been made quite a lot, so it is summarized that electronic signatures should be used if necessary after considering the law regulations and the necessity of guarantee of completeness.

In addition, regarding electronic signatures that can be used, for example, as written in parentheses, if it is the government or a central government agency, there is a certificate of government position in the government public key infrastructure called GPKI, and if it is a local local government, there is a certificate of responsibility in the LGPKI. In addition, it is summarized by exemplifying that electronic signatures as prescribed in Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act can also be used.

In addition, there is also a Issue where the signature validation does not work if the thing digitally signed by GPKI is opened by some software, AcrobatReader of Adobe, so it is also described that a web service that can perform the signature validation is made in Digital Agency and that is also published.

In addition, as a matter of course, it is important to guarantee the reliability of information, such as the identity of the issuer, and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and we have summarized that it is necessary to do so in each case. In the case of an application, the other party is known, for example, the e-mail address and the name of the other party are known, but in particular, in the case of a document that is not based on an application and is notified by the administrative side in a one-way manner, it is possible that the e-mail address or even the contact address of the other party may not be known in the first place, and in such cases, it is necessary to pay more attention to ensuring the reliability, and we have summarized specific ways to respond.

Page 8 is the last part of the outline, but I would like to introduce some. At the top is the expiration date. What to do if the expiration date of the license certificate and the expiration date of the E-Certificate in the electronic signature attached to the license certificate are different. This is also a common question. It is natural that the expiration date of the license certificate is valid, but if the expiration date of the electronic signature comes first, there are various ways to handle it, such as using a time stamp or typing more than one time, so I would like to explain these.

In addition, the second point, the time of arrival, is quite difficult, but I have also organized my idea of when the notification of disposition was received by the other party. This differs depending on where the file stored in the computer is located in each procedure and the configuration of each system. For example, if it is downloaded, it can be identified immediately if some log is left, but in the case of e-mail, it is not known whether the other party received it. Of course, there are various ways to confirm the opening of the file by sending an e-mail using a rigid method such as S/MIME, but in other cases, it is unknown. In such cases, it is quite elementary or easy to confirm the arrival by another route, but I have summarized possible ways to respond.

The last is the concept of preservation in the management of official documents. Of course, digitization and digitalization do not change anything, so appropriate management as official documents is necessary, so I have summarized it with specific examples.

As for our future plans, we are currently starting to seek opinions from related ministries and agencies, make adjustments, and so on. As soon as this is completed, we will receive a wide range of opinions in the form of public comments, and then, at the Technical Review Meeting in late March, we plan to formulate an informative document as I mentioned at the beginning. After that, we will make it known to related organizations and Mr. local government.

Although it is not written on page 9, I would like you to publish and use the easy-to-understand Q & amp; A series, flow charts, and reference documents that summarize related regulations. It may be a small step from the goal we aim for, but there has been no such easy-to-understand text so far, so we are thinking that it is meaningful for Digital Agency to take a step first.

That's all for the explanation.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th Thank you very much.

Today, we continue to talk about innovation. I would like to invite you to speak. How do you like it?
Then, shall we go with Mr. Iwamura, Mr. Ochiai, and Mr. Masushima? Please.

Member of Iwamura: Thank you, .
As expected, written and face-to-face regulation is a field in which companies have high needs, so thank you for incorporating the promotion of digital completion in administrative proceduer this time.

As you explained, at the "Multi-stakeholder Model Review Meeting for digital reform," we made progress in specific discussions on ensuring data integrity, simplifying the digital completion, confirming delivery, and system validation for the design of disposition notices, etc. Based on these corporate needs, I would like to highly evaluate it.

On the corporate side, we have high expectations that the "Basic Concept of digitalization of Disposition Notice" will be presented as a guide for ministries and agencies and local government to actually proceed with digitalization of administrative procedures and will be used to realize end-to-end digital completion. We would appreciate your continued support.

That's all.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .
Then, Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you, .
I also thought this initiative was a very wonderful initiative. When we were discussing it at the regulatory reform Promotion Conference, some of the various details and notifications were not computerized, so you said end-to-end digitalization, but I thought there were parts that could not be completed digitally. In that sense, I thought it was a very wonderful point in the sense that you came up with another solution for an important part.

With regard to the ideas summarized in the notification of disposition this time, I believe that the methods that can be used by the administrative side are not the ones that cannot be used in private sector. In relation to private sector, for example, the guidelines for identity verification by the administrative side were established first, and I believe that they referred to the NIST framework, but there were cases where people in private sector organized them later by referring to the NIST framework. In that sense, I believe that there are parts that show the organization of some of the basic exchanges in the wider world. First of all, I believe that there are notifications by the administrative side, but on the other hand, I believe that private sector can save labor in these parts, and that there are parts that will be beneficial to digitalization in private sector by advancing efforts in the same way. I would like you to convey this from such a perspective.

There are two more points that I was concerned about in Issue in the future. First of all, I think you wrote that you would like to manage public documents so that they can be used in digitalization. I think that public document management itself was not necessarily organized in a way that is aware of data utilization. When considering EBPM in the future, I think that just managing public documents is not a good way to use them, or it will be difficult to analyze and respond to them as digital data in future policies. Therefore, I thought that after the compilation, it would be better to proceed based on the possibility of using them as digital data in policy.

Second, I believe that E-Certificate is very important. In this regard, for example, in terms of personal relationships, My Number Card has become quite popular, and the highest level type of E-Certificate has become available. However, I believe that there was a situation where such things were not used so much on the administrative and corporate side. I believe that it will be related to the development of the base registry in the future, but I believe that the E-Certificate part has been shown what can be done now, and the efforts this time have been completed, but I would be grateful if Digital Agency as a whole could promote the promotion of use by E-Certificate corporations and the administrative side. At the time of the abolition of the use of written signatures and seals, there was a lack of easy-to-use electronic signatures, so if the document was not subject to two stage presumption, it would not be necessary to affix a seal to anything, but I believe that it should be upgraded in general, so I would like you to consider it.

However, I believe that this summary is sufficient as a whole, so I have commented on future developments and additional matters. Thank you very much.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th . Today, the words of praise will continue.
Dr. Masushima, Dr. Inadani, in that order, please.

Masujima Member: Thank you very much for .
I think it is very important to do what can be done in the short term. I would like you to take a very important attitude of doing what you can do in the short term. It takes time to create a system, and I think it is very important to do what you can do now rather than doing it, so I think there will be many stories about other things that will be like this in the long run or that you can do this kind of thing, but if you do something that is not like this, on the contrary, it will be a culture. So, I would like you to apply this to things other than this initiative.

The second point is that public office is watching what private sector is doing. In particular, when people like financial institutions are wondering if they can do this, it is often the case that public office is doing it, so it is good for us to do it. So, if you take such an approach, people in private sector will actually refer to it and say that if public office is doing it, we should be able to do it. Conversely, I think it would be grateful if you could make a document like this and make it known to the world.

That's all.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th . public office's influence is really great.
Mr. Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani First of all, as Mr. Ochiai said, in order to realize the digital completion, one of the bottlenecks was that the sender did not understand well what to do. I think it is a very important initiative to sort out the situation in this way, and I think it is a very wonderful initiative.

Another point is that it will probably become another bottleneck. This time, it is not related, so it will be in the future, but I believe that the next issue will be how to make recipients want to receive digital notifications. In particular, I believe that one important point is how to reduce digital notifications to those who want to receive them through Mynaportal. As an incentive for that, I would like to see further efforts to promote digital notifications, including measures to reduce usage fees.

That's all.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .

I would like to receive a return from Yamano-san, but due to time constraints, I will ask you to do it separately.
As for the third topic, I would like to discuss "base registry for companies and Institutional Issue." On this topic, the Ministry of Justice, the National Tax Administration Agency, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism are also participating.

First of all, I would like to ask Counselor Mishima to explain.

Councilor Mishima: Thank you, . Nice to meet you.
I would like to explain the materials under the title of "base registry for companies and Institutional Issue."

I would like to ask you to discuss this today. First of all, as you can see on page 3, I am aware that there have been repeated requests from Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee and the business community regarding the thorough implementation of digital completion and One Time Only, the establishment of a base registry, which is the basic data of data connections and the society that serves as its foundation, and legal liquidation.

As for Issue, which I would like you to discuss today, as a materialization of "(v) Principles for the Use of Common Infrastructure" in the Digital Principles for Structural Reforms, I would like you to discuss the significance of developing corporate information in public authorities, using the example of the corporate sector already discussed at the Working Group meeting in August, regarding specific data items that can be realized once and only and systems to realize them.

Pages 3 and 4 are for reference only, so I will omit them.

Page 5 is also for your reference, but this is a material that was already released at the fifth meeting of the Digital Rincho in October, and a material has already been released that the Working Group will advance consideration toward the implementation of digital completion in public service in cooperation with projects in the entire Digital Agency.

In addition, as for page 6, it was already indicated in August that when developing and utilizing the base registry related to business activities, we should first consider the basic information of corporations, which is necessary information across systems.

Next, on page 7, it is the significance of maintaining the basic corporate information data as the base registry. We believe that by maintaining the basic corporate information data and sharing it between organization, it is possible to omit the duplication of "application / notification" in each system and administrative procedure, realize one time only, and facilitate digital completion such as notification.

In addition, in the future, the complementarity of data between systems will be ensured, and it will be easier to combine data. For example, it will be possible to quickly and smoothly respond to emergencies such as disasters, or to EBPM society as a whole through efficiency.

In addition, with regard to the use of private sector, I believe that there may be cases in which the improvement in the quality of data held by public authorities leads to the efficiency of transactions between private sector companies, so I believe that it is necessary for the Government as a whole to consider such cases later based on the return on investment.

Please go to page 8. With regard to the omission of administrative procedures related to basic corporate information, as shown in this table, it is currently required to make an "application / notification" for each system. Although efforts are underway to omit the attachment of certificates of registered matters, etc., it is still necessary to make an "application / notification" for each system.

In addition, as shown in this table, the items that are required for each system are indicated by ○, and it is required to apply for the items that are common to multiple systems.

On page 9, I would like to ask about the number of subjects of each procedure and the number of procedures for change (annual). I am aware that in each system, at most 100,000 or more procedures for change of corporate basic information are performed annually. In addition, I believe that by sharing corporate basic information, it will be possible to at least omit procedures for items that overlap with each system for about 820,000 changes per year that are potentially found in registration statistics.

Next, on page 10, I have attached the situation of each country for your reference. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, and other countries, only electronic applications are made. On the other hand, in France, Singapore, Estonia, and China, which are on the far right, it is already possible to omit the procedures because "application / notification" is not required for each system for items that overlap with registration. On the other hand, as I explained earlier, Japan is moving forward with an intermediate initiative to omit the attachment.

Next, on page 11, as a specific benefit, I would like to omit the "application / notification" item. As I mentioned earlier, in the current situation, the applicant provides basic corporate information, and the "examination / receipt" side is working to compare the information of the applicant with the attached documents and the information linked to the back office. On the other hand, for applications that have been authenticated by gBizID, etc., we believe that it will be sufficient to provide only the corporate number associated with the application.

Next, on page 12, regarding "Application for Change / Notification," since "Application for Change / Notification" has been made for each system even for items that overlap with the registration, if the master data derived from the commercial registration is linked, we believe that "Application for Change / Notification" in each system may be unnecessary for duplicate items as long as the registration is changed.

Next, page 13 shows the direction of institutional responses. In order to realize the above, I believe it is necessary to amend the system so that the applicant does not need to make an "application / notification" by specifying what items will be shared on an item-by-item basis with the master data referenced by each ministry and agency, and then referring to the master data as necessary by the public authorities side. In addition, I believe it is necessary to specify the responsibilities and roles of the provider of the master data, develop and provide the data, and proceed with the system revision and business review of each ministry and agency based on cost effectiveness.

Today, we would like you to discuss the part that specifies the master data of (1) and (2) by item, and the system revision to make "application / notification" unnecessary by referring to the data.

On page 14, this is the specific part of the specific items. Based on the common items in the system of each ministry and agency, the part surrounded by a red frame, I believe that we should start with sharing information derived from commercial registration. In addition, contact information is the same as a data item, but the description of the department in charge and the person in charge may be different depending on the system and the scale of the business operator, so I believe that the nature is different from sharing registration information, and I believe that we should start with sharing information derived from commercial registration.

Next, page 15 shows the institutional response that allows reference to the master data. As I explained earlier, each system now requires an applicant to "apply / notify" information, which is regulated by law. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the system in order to specify the information that each system should cross-reference and to be able to refer to the information without requesting it from the "applicant / notifier." In the case of the personal field, there is an example where law has already exempted the "applicant / notifier" from the "application / notification" duty.

On the other hand, we believe that it is also unrealistic to amend each law individually for each system. Therefore, although we are working to omit the attachment, there is a provision in the Digital Procedure Act that exempts from the requirement of attachment in a lump sum without depending on the provisions of each law. Therefore, we believe that it is possible to develop a provision that exempts from the requirement of "application / notification" in a lump sum for the items specified as master data with reference to this provision.

To be specific, Article 11 of the Digital Procedures Act below specifies the part written in red regarding efforts to omit attachments. This is an image of the content of the additional provisions in blue letters based on this. We believe that, regardless of the provisions of each law, if a business operator can refer to data items maintained as a base registry through intersystem cooperation with a public authorities, etc., it may be possible to refer to the master data by incorporating the content that it is not necessary to make an "application / notification" or an "application for change / notification of change" regarding the items.

It is page 16. I would like to state the points that I would like you to discuss today. As an ideal form, I would like to discuss the possibility of simplifying application matters and omitting procedures by sharing information derived from commercial registration between systems and organization. As specific items and points to be noted, I would like to discuss the development and utilization of basic corporate information, starting with items for which institutional collateral exists, such as commercial registration, and matters to be noted in sharing that information. In addition, in terms of the direction of institutional responses, I would like to discuss institutional measures for sharing, the creation of "possible provisions" as I explained earlier.

That's all for my explanation.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th Thank you very much.
Then, I would like to hear your opinion. Anyone is welcome.
Then, please start with Dr. Inadani.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani . Thank you for your very detailed explanation.
As I understand it, promoting the base registry will lead to realizing the world view like Ambient, which is on page 5 in today's materials. I think the goal is to reduce so-called sludge, which is caused by the fact that it takes a lot of time and effort to confirm the relationship of rights, for example, which hinders smooth transactions, or it is difficult for administrative agencies to access data, and it takes a lot of time and effort. That is exactly what digitalization can solve, and I would like to see progress made.

In this talk, for example, from the point of efficiency, we will proceed from the point that everyone uses, so I think it is also the case that we will proceed from the information derived from commercial registration. In addition, I think it is a strategy that is very targeted to develop the regulations for applications in a lump sum.

However, for example, I believe that the development of such regulations now will create provisions that can be referred to by ministries and agencies, but if the overall data is prepared, I believe that in the future it will be more complete if the regulations are set to "must be".

Another issue is who will pay for the management of the master data. I believe that Mr. Digital Agency will eventually take the lead in this regard. He is in a position to promote the entire process across the board, so I believe that is the case.

In fact, when I think about Ambient and reducing sludge, I think it will spread to other base registries. In particular, I think that we will have to advance the development of real estate registry in the future. At that time, I think that transactions will be speeded up by advancing the development of real estate registry. Now, we have to go to a registry office and check if they actually have the land, and how it is. There are places where sludge is spread, so I think that the elimination of this area is extremely important from the perspective of facilitating transactions. In addition, I think that it is essential to improve tax and other administrative procedures efficiently.

Since immovable registration is a very important system, we would like you to improve the base registry to eliminate sludge. In addition, I understand that we have public confidence in commercial registration this time, but in terms of real estate registry, there is a possibility that there is a possibility that there is a sludge that has not been seen before. So, I would like you to organize this, or to organize the timing of the change of ownership in the digital era, so that we can further promote digital completion and continue to discuss it with a view to promoting DX for society as a whole.

It may be a bit of a dream, but today's first agenda was, when it first came up, about whether we can really do this, but I think that due to your efforts, the actual problem is progressing considerably, so I don't think it is impossible to do it. Therefore, I thought that it would be good if real estate registry and other prefectures could proceed with this basic base registry, and in the future digital completion could advance DX throughout society.
Best regards

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th Civil Law may finally be revised. That's amazing.
Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you, .

I also think that this initiative is very wonderful. I believe that the direction of the basic summary is being discussed in a very targeted direction.

As for commercial registration, I think it plays the role of a corporate version of a database like the Basic Resident Register. Therefore, I think it is important that it is not only easy to use, but also that it is maintained from the most basic part. I think you said that the part is humble and easy to use, but I feel that you are working on it from the basic part.

First of all, I would like to start with the parts that can be done, and further points that should be considered in the future. For example, on page 14, you wrote that it can be used in various fields by specifying specific items. One of the important points to make it one time only is how to ensure the freshness of the base registry, especially the master data. Instead of not handing over the data unless you go to get it, there may be cases where the push type is better. If so, I think there will be parts that will be automatically completed. I would like to ask you to consider such points as additional efforts.

Second, there are important things such as taxes, social security, support systems, benefit support, and gBizID for login verification. I think each of them has an ID, so in relation to individual measures, I think we may develop IDs for measures. This area will be appropriately coordinated from the base registry, and areas that have an impact on individual amounts of money or are often used in the real world will be firmly linked. I think you have already shown it in this diagram, but I would like you to continue to do so.

Finally, I would like to ask you to make a legislative package. In addition, Mr. Inadani talked about real estate, and I think that in the future information linkages, data governance of the country itself will be required in the arrangement of personal data on the administrative side. I would like to ask you to prepare for the arrangement from such a perspective, as well as the development of the legal basis, how to organize governance and the justification.

That's all. Once again, I think it is a wonderful initiative.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .
Next, let's ask Managing Director Iwamura and Mr. Masujima in that order.

Member of Iwamura: Thank you, .
If the basic information of corporations, etc. can be maintained as a base registry, I believe that the efficiency of application and notification will progress dramatically, and the people and business operators will be able to directly feel the convenience. As you pointed out today, I would like you to proceed with the project, including its future development potential.

In addition, I would like to make a statement in relation to the two agenda items before today. We are cooperating in public relations at various junctures, and I think it is extremely important to effectively and comprehensibly communicate what kind of efforts the Digital Rincho has made to date, including discussions at our Working Group, and what kind of things we have become able to do. Keidanren would like to cooperate while devising ways to communicate. Thank you very much.

That's all.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .
Masushima-sensei, please.

Masujima Member: Thank you very much for .
As with the previous initiatives, I believe that you are working from where you can start and where you know how to do it, and I believe that it is also very good from the perspective of advancing it rapidly.

If we proceed with this registry and so on, I think real estate is a typical example, but in short, there are people who are troubled by the convenience. I think this commercial registration is a world where I want the company to do it and everyone to do it, so there are no people who don't like it, so I think this is why I want to start from here. But there are quite a few people who make money by not being smooth, and I think this is one step toward breaking through that. In that sense, by working on this, the financial effect is that the burden is considerably reduced, and the work that desk workers have to do is reduced, so I think there are considerable cost savings on both the private sector side and the public side.

In that case, I would like you to estimate the amount of efficiency made by this initiative, but I would like you to make it in the form of a cost and market it. If you put it out, people will say that they don't like it when they want to do something else, with a plausible reason. In contrast, if you say that you can save 500 billion yen by doing this, you will be able to talk about the value of what you are selling. So, I would like you to think about how much you can save in terms of numbers, especially in terms of money. Of course, it doesn't have to be accurate, but I would like you to think about what you should aim for. If you could do such system marketing, I would be grateful because it would be easier for us to say that we should do it.

That's all.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th . The numbers are the most convincing.

Then, I would like to hear the opinions of the relevant ministries and agencies who are attending today. I would like to hear the opinions of each ministry and agency on "Points to be discussed today" on page 16 of the Secretariat's materials. I will designate them, so please make your remarks.

First of all, regarding the National Tax Agency, from the perspective of corporate taxation, I would like to ask your views on the simplification of application matters, the perspective of omitting procedures, and the matters to be noted when sharing information. What do you think?

National Tax Agency (Manager of the Muramatsu Division): Thank you very much, . My name is Muramatsu, Director of the Corporation Taxation Division of the National Tax Agency. Nice to meet you.

Based on the content of your explanation today, I would like to express the view of the National Tax Agency. For national taxes, when there is a change in the location of the head office or the business year of a corporation, it is required by law to submit a notification of change, etc., in writing or electronically by e-Tax to the competent district director. In order to simplify or omit the submission of a notification of change, we believe that it is necessary to revise the system, such as sharing commercial registration information between systems and organization, and not requiring the submission of a notification of change, etc., with regard to the shared information. If such a revision is made, we believe that it is possible to consider simplifying or omitting the submission of a notification of change with regard to the change in the location of the head office, etc. of a corporation.

However, in the current situation, if there is a change in the location of the head office, etc., the notification of change to be submitted will include the telephone number of the contact person after the change. If the procedures are simplified and the notification of change is no longer submitted, we will lose the means to identify such contact persons. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to take measures to identify such contact persons when considering simplification and labor saving.

In addition, we believe that the frequency of updating is extremely important when sharing commercial registration information. For example, if the authorities send a notice with a disposition, if they do not understand that the location of the head office, etc. has changed, the notice will be returned. It may cause hindrance to the performance of business. Therefore, we believe that the commercial registration information to be provided needs to be updated daily.

That's all. Thank you very much.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .

Next, I would like to ask the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). From the perspective of jurisdiction over the licensing system, what are your thoughts on the simplification of application items, the perspective of omitting procedures, institutional measures for sharing, and the creation of "possible provisions"?

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (Director Miki): I am Miki from the Food Safety Monitoring Section in Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, . After receiving your explanation, I would like to share Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's comments.

We are in charge of the supervision and guidance of food business operators based on the Food Sanitation Act. Among them, what is related to this talk is the system of business permission and business notification. In particular, for restaurants and the like that have a significant impact on public health, the governor of the local local government issues business permission. This is regulated by the Food Sanitation Act.

Based on the revision of the Food Sanitation Act in 2018, various industries subject to permission were reviewed, and it has been enforced since June 2021.

In addition to the business license system, a system of business notification has been established, and it is possible to grasp the entire food business operators by business license industry and notification, and if there is a change in the information of the business operator, it is necessary to notify the competent health center to that effect.

In addition, in line with the enforcement of the Food Sanitation Act, we are developing and operating a system for food sanitation applications that allows online application for "application for permission / notification." Currently, we are in the transitional period such as the validity period of the business license obtained based on the Food Sanitation Act prior to the revision, and we are still in the transition period for the time being.

Under these circumstances, with regard to the development of basic corporate information as a base registry as you explained today, the procedures for when business operators change their representatives will be simplified, and if the local government side does not need to confirm such change information, the administration is expected to greatly benefit from the simplification.

In terms of systems, I believe that we will be able to respond with a sense of speed if the digital procedural laws that you mentioned today can be developed in a lump sum.

In addition, as some members expressed their opinions, we would appreciate it very much if Digital Agency would take the lead in coordinating with each system and taking budgetary measures when the system is developed.

We would like to continue to actively cooperate with you. Thank you very much.

That's all.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th , Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Thank you for your encouraging words.
Next, from the perspective of the Digital Procedures Act, what are your thoughts on institutional measures for sharing, including the creation of "doable provisions"?

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Mayor of Imuro Sake): My name is Sakai from the DX Office of the Minister's Secretariat of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry .

Since the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is responsible for many support systems and permissions for business operators, it is very significant for both the public and private sectors to share basic corporate information between organization in terms of business efficiency and improvement of convenience.

For example, even in the procedures previously under the jurisdiction of the Ministry, when a business operator who has obtained approval, etc. under multiple systems changes the name of a corporation, there are omissions in the procedures, and when they are discovered, a large amount of administrative costs have been incurred. Therefore, the Ministry believes that the sharing of basic corporate information will greatly contribute not only to the convenience of the business operator and our own business efficiency, but also to the prevention of such procedural deficiencies.

On the other hand, I believe that institutional measures and the information linkages method should be as efficient as possible, so I believe that it would be very desirable for this to be handled collectively under the Digital Procedures Act, which you mentioned earlier.

We are very much looking forward to the progress of this initiative toward the realization of One Time Only.

That's all.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th , Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, thank you very much.

We received opinions from various ministries and agencies. I believe that they were very helpful and reassuring.

As it is already past 11:30, I would like to conclude today's discussion.
Mr. Inadani has just made a remark on real estate registry. I would like to ask the Secretariat to consider handling this issue at the next Working Group meeting. Mr. Mishima, what do you think?

Councilor Mishima: Thank you, .

We are also considering and improving the base registry, such as the real estate base registry and the address-based registry that received the registration information of real estate from the real estate base registry. Therefore, we would like to report on the efficiency of administrative procedures based on the utilization of the items of real estate premised on the current real estate system after we organize them next time.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th . I look forward to working with you in that direction.
Then, I would like to ask all the people from the relevant ministries who attended to leave. Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th Finally, I would like to have a word from Senior Vice-Minister Okushi.

Senior Vice-Minister for Digital Okushi: Thank you very much to all the members of for your positive remarks today. In addition, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the many words of praise you have given me.

First of all, you discussed how to proceed with technology-based regulatory reform for the time being. At last, the Technology Map improvement project using the supplementary budget will start. In cooperation with each ministries and agencies, we will promote the search and validation of technologies that contribute to the review of regulation, and publish a map showing the results. At the same time, we will further collect technologies to overcome Issue found in validation, which will lead to a virtuous cycle of review and innovation in regulation.

Next, we discussed the basic concept of digitalization, such as the notification of disposition. Aiming for the end of the fiscal year, we will present the concept we received today to the relevant public authorities, and steadily advance end-to-end digital completion from the application to the notification of disposition in cooperation with each ministries and agencies.

Lastly, with regard to base registry for companies and Institutional Issue as the embodiment of the Comprehensive Data Strategy, the ministries and agencies concerned attended the meeting and discussed the simplification of application items and the possibility of omitting procedures through the sharing of basic information, as well as the direction of the items to be shared and the cross-sectional revision of laws. They also raised issues. At the next Working Group meeting, we plan to discuss the requirements for the development of shared data and the ideal provider, so we would like you to continue to make active comments.

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

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th .
Then, I would like to ask the Secretariat to explain about the next Working Group meeting.

Secretariat (Matsuda): The next meeting of the Working Group is scheduled for 10:00 on March 28. Thank you very much.

In addition, regarding today's proceedings, I believe that there are no contents that are not suitable for disclosure, so I would like to prepare the minutes later and disclose them after everyone checks them.
If you do not have any particular objection to today's materials, we would like to disclose all of them on the Digital Rincho website.

Thank you for joining us today.

Deputy Chair: This concludes the 18th Conference. Today, we were very excited from start to finish. I am glad that we had a very good discussion.

Thank you very much, everyone.