Skip to main content

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

Digital System Reform Study Meeting (3rd)

Overview

  • Date and time: Tuesday, January 23, 2024, from 10:30 to 12:00
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Progress on "Technology-Based regulatory reform"
      2. Base Registry and Institutional Issue - About the Address and Location Relationship Database (base registry for address) -
    3. Adjournment

Materials

Minutes

Secretariat (Ishii): Thank you very much, time, we will start the 3rd Digital System Reform Review Meeting.
This time, members are invited to participate online.

Then, I would like you to discuss today's agenda. I would like to ask Chairman Annen to proceed with the proceedings from now on. Thank you, Mr. Annen.

Chairman: .

Let's get down to business. Today's agenda includes two issues: Part 1: Progress on' Technology-Based regulatory reform' and Part 2: Base Registry and Institutional Issue - Address and Location Relationship Database (base registry for address).

First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Hitoshi Suga, Director of the Secretariat, to explain the progress of "Technology-based regulatory reform."

Councilor Suga: I think it is the base figure when calculating the . I'm Hitoshi Suga. Nice to meet you, too.

I have distributed three materials to you. The main body is Material 1, and in addition to that, Attachment 1 "Holding of the Technology Catalog Operation Task Force" is a report that the Technology Catalog Operation Task Force, a closed meeting of members to discuss Cyber security and Supply Chain Risk Management, which we have been talking about holding for a long time, has been established as a task force. And in Attachment 2 "Effects and Future of Technology such as drones and 3D Point Cloud," this is an article in which representatives of the Technology validation project, which is currently underway, gathered for a dialogue. I thought it was finished to give you an image of what on earth they are doing, so I attached it. If you have time, please take a look.

Then, I will explain based on Material 1. Following the usual flow, first of all, I would like to report on the progress of the Technology validation Project. Thanks to you, all 32 Technology validation Projects have entered the validation stage before the end of the year. On page 3, the Minister Kono said that he would like to see the site, and I visited ALSOK in Inagi City at the end of the year. To be specific, in the digitalization for the inspection of indoor environments, using wearable devices such as drones and smart glasses, an apartment manager operates the device, even though he or she does not have a license. Then, in a remote environment, a person with a license comes here and shows it to us. As a result, there is a fear that the shortage of qualified personnel will be a major bottleneck in future inspections, but basically, if these people are watching the screen in the conference room, they can respond to the inspection of the apartment, which is increasing one after another, and I have actually observed that the accuracy of the images taken in drones and other places is higher than expected.

On page 4, an interim report has been prepared since the end of this year from the type in which we started technical validation early, and we are confirming the content in cooperation with the authorities. Among them, I have summarized the specific content of the inspection to enable remote intermediate and completion inspections under the Building Standards Act, which is being conducted by the MAEDA CORPORATION in Type 9. This involves taking a video with a 360-degree camera, comparing the coordinates with a AR marker so that the location does not shift, understanding the size and structure of the entire building in a 3D form by superimposing it on the BIM of the building frame, and performing the inspection from there.

On page 5, I had a conversation with the authorities, and they basically said that there would be no major impact on the systems and that it would be fine. On the other hand, they also pointed out in detail that they would like to confirm these points a little more, and we will proceed with the second half of the Technical validation.

On page 6, there are types in which the Technology validation Project was not established, so I am rearranging them. To extract a few external elements, I believe that many law are targeted at underground areas, ordinary homes, and ships, where it is difficult to conduct real-time monitoring by installing sensors at all times, even during periodic inspections and inspections. We are currently conducting hearings on why you could not apply for each project and what was difficult.

On page 8, among the opinions expressed through the hearings, there are of course those who most assume that the requirements are too high and there are no products that meet the specifications, but there are also those who say that development is necessary and that it is probably technically possible, and those who point out that even if it is possible, there may be no demand or it will be unprofitable due to the cost. In addition, there was a lack of explanation, such as that the period of public offering was short and the period of demonstration was short, and we did not know what kind of public offering it was. However, we will continue to scrutinize it a little and report on it when insights emerge.

The above is the report on the current status of Technology validation.

Next, regarding Technology Map, the first version was posted on the website on October 6 last year and remains as it is. Basically, rather than updating it over and over again, we would like to give it a snapshot to some extent. It has already been posted on the website, and when we analyze the various accesses to the website from Technology Map related efforts in the digital dialogue, it seems that this map page is the entrance and landing page for most people, and it seems that it has already been accessed by many people.

On page 15, I wrote about future developments, but when Technology validation and other projects are completed and new technology areas emerge, we would of course like to reflect this, but we would like to continue to scrutinize whether this will be included in one map, or whether there will be a map that extracts only the areas where validation has been completed, and whether there will be a Issue of Technology development in the future, and whether there will be a map that we would like to see if technology emerges, if there is a need to do so.

The technology catalog starts on page 16. For the provision that does not require technology validation, we are recruiting target technologies in five stages. As for page 19, we are recruiting until the fourth round, and finally, by the end of this month, we are recruiting for the fifth round, so we can cover all of them, and expand the coverage area of the catalog.

On page 20, we have summarized the outline of the results from the first round of the public offering. The first round was the training and examination, and we originally received 27 questions. After that, there were a large number of questions such as security. We asked for additional information on those questions. Thankfully, 17 questions were added. We are now listing them in the catalog. Unfortunately, it is difficult to answer some of the 27 questions, so some of them cannot be listed now.

Next, regarding the visit and inspection, there were only 11 applications, and we were a little surprised. As I will report later, the number of applications for the next category has increased considerably, so I think that digital completion, which is for the visit and inspection, is an extremely difficult field for the catalog field. In particular, the government agency in charge of regulation requested that we prevent snooping, but at this point, there are no applications for products that meet this request.

Page 21 shows the results of the third public offering. Thankfully, it will be an area where drones will be active again in terms of understanding the situation of damage. We have received 53 applications, the highest number ever. In addition, we have received 22 proposals on the management of business sites and the confirmation of business conditions on site. I would like to publish them in the catalog one by one after carefully examining the contents.

We are causing a lot of burden to the companies that applied, and there are many more questions. We will constantly review them, and regarding security, for example, even if this item is No, it will be listed in the catalog as usual, and the results will not change. I would like to make further efforts in the future, such as narrowing down the items once. I would like to operate the catalog by selecting items with higher importance as needed.

Regarding the 4th edition, on page 22, I wrote the outline of the catalog public offering, which is currently under public offering, and from the end of the year to the beginning of the year, we are continuing the public offering.

That's all for the report on the catalog. The consortium starts on page 23. The RegTech Consortium originally proposed that in addition to the catalog and map being compiled and published by Digital Agency, if new technologies emerge or if there are needs from the ministries and agencies responsible for digital completion that such technologies could be used for regulation, it would be good to create a community in which information can be shared quickly. Thanks to you, the number of applications and participants for the conso is gradually increasing. Also, the attributes of the participants are in various balances.

On page 25, we have a report on the first RegTech Cafe. We held a big kick-off event called RegTech Day with the cooperation of everyone. After that, we held the first RegTech Cafe in order to create a place where information that can be useful to people on the ground is shared, rather than what is difficult in each technical validation and what are the problems on the ground, as we are distributing articles. We also set up a time to explain how to read and use the Technology Map and catalog, and it has been very well received. The speakers' stories are very interesting and seem to be in high demand, so we have an outline of the second RegTech Cafe on page 26. We are planning to hold it online two days later, on the 25th of this month. This time, we are planning to have a person in charge of Oita prefecture, who shared a technical validation in local government for the first time, join us and explain what the prefecture is thinking and what we are working with the government on.

Based on the above, page 27 is the activity schedule of the consortium, and we would like to continue to hold events that warm up the community. Thanks to the Slack community, we have started to have many conversations on Slack during this cafe, so I think it has become a little more active.

Finally, from page 28 on, we are talking about the future schedule. On page 29, last year, we asked a fairly general question about what kind of things should we handle, including technologies that should be included in the catalog, and we received a large number of answers. We are also consulting on whether we can list individual items that can be included in the catalog, rather than throwing away the information as it is. In addition, we are making sure that all events such as consortia will be guided, so we will continue to use the information of the RFI carefully, and this is an interim report on the current handling.

Page 30 is an updated version of the schedule. Due to the New Year's earthquake, the Security and Safety validation Department of the Technology regulation is also quite busy. We have received consultations from business operators and the authorities that they would like to extend the period of the Technology validation a little, and we are responding flexibly. Based on this, the entire schedule will be completed by the end of the fiscal year, and things are progressing smoothly so far.

Finally, on page 31, I have created a new material. This is a list of what we have been working on and what kind of work we have been doing since the age of digital consultation, and where we think we need to work harder in the future. At the top of the figure, it is written that regulations on paper and in-person processes is about 10,000 provision, but the majority of them, about 8,600 provision, are said by the authorities to be unlocked immediately without technology validation, and to be able to use the technology by abolishing the analog rule. In this regard, although it is a hollow arrow, we will immediately start reviewing regulation. And when it is reviewed, we will invite applications from the public for technologies that can be used and publish them in the catalog. In order to create the catalog, we need a comprehensive map, so we will classify regulations on paper and in-person processes well, create a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, and create the Technology Map on the left side in a way that the map and the catalog work together. I think this is the biggest flow of work since the age of digital consultation.

In addition, what we were working on in relation to Technology Map was the creation of an ecosystem around validation. First of all, of the 1,043 provision that were said to require Technology validation on the right, about half of them said that they wanted Digi-Cho to flag Technology provision, and there are 460, which are currently being validation through the 32 projects that I explained earlier.

In fact, 590 provision, which is marked with another yellow arrow, is probably a case where the regulation authorities said that they would need a Technology validation, and the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation would be tasked with doing it on their own. Has the Technology validation been done in general by June this year? If it is done, what kind of review can be done? When it is done, what kind of technology can be used? I believe that efforts should be made to collect and summarize this as valuable knowledge. That is the yellow series of work on the far left, and the most valuable technical information is technology that has already been validation. We will publish this in the catalog for 460 provision, and we would like to publish the parts that have been validation by the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation to the extent that we can cover them. This is one area in which we would like to allocate resources going forward.

Also, as you have pointed out many times here, it is very important that after being published in this catalog one by one, it will actually be used on the ground and a new technology market will open up. As you can see from the two arrows below the catalog, I would like to see the work of putting things like SaaS on the Digital Marketplace firmly in cooperation with each team in Digital Agency. In addition, I would like to make efforts to monitor and understand the procurement situation in some way, such as how much progress has been made in procurement, how much damage has been caused by this catalog, and whether the catalog was easy to use, including those that did not go through it. This is my second major focus area. While doing this, I would like to maintain communities for each target audience as written on the right.

That's all for my report. Thank you very much.

Chairman: .

Please let me know if you have any questions or opinions about the current explanation. It has become a big wave. It is reassuring.

Councilor Suga: I think it is the base figure when calculating the .

Chairman: Mr. Masashima, please.

Masujima Member: Thank you, . We look forward to seeing you again this year.

For execution, the leadership of everyone inside is the most important, and I thought that you were doing a great job, so I saw it. What we can do on the plus private sector side is to let as many people as possible know that this attempt is being made, and we are doing activities to let customers know that there are maps, catalogs, and cafes. One thing we noticed was that there are many people who are doing business in a way that they did not originally expect to be the application of their technology, but when we think about it, I feel that there are quite a few things that could be RegTech. I heard that there are quite a few things that can be experienced with the customers we are talking about, but I feel that there are probably many other people like that. I see a completely different place as the application of the current solution, but it seems that a great market will open up here, and it is a problem that our technology can be used there. You said that there were some places where there were no applications, but I feel that there are actually some places, so I wonder what I should do to reach here. Of course, it is true that I am asked to join a cafe or a consortium, but in the end, unless I think that this place may be relevant to me, I don't think I will make a decision or act to enter there. If you think about how to get there, I feel that there is actually some technology many times more than what is currently available. I would like to have a quick discussion about this place.

Second, I would like to ask how many companies like start-ups are there among those who are currently applying. Originally, large companies, of course, were welcome for this project, but it is strange that start-ups with new technologies work together with the government to support start-ups, but I thought that was also the context. So, in particular, I would be grateful if you could give me some information on how many start-ups have applied and been active.

That's all.

Chairman: .

Then, as usual, I would like to hear your comments, and if there are any comments from Counselor Suga, I would like to hear them back.

Mr. Ochiai, may I have your say?

Ochiai Member: . I also heard your explanation, and I am very confident that various efforts are being made, and I believe that the actual results are quite significant.

In that sense, in fact, at the regulatory reform Promotion Conference, we were saying that if possible, it would be better to take up what we are good at in the digital version, but I think there are quite a few parts that are exactly as imagined. In that sense, first of all, I think it is truly wonderful that so many provision have been dealt with and prepared.

On top of that, there are several parts in this form. I think it is very important that you give us your opinions on how to respond to the types of cases where there were no effective proposals on page 8, and I believe that there are hints that will lead to further sophistication of responses in future efforts.

In that sense, it is hard to say that we just do not have the technology itself at this point, but for example, the need for a new development is unexpectedly a RegTech aspect, and I think it is important. When we are told that we can do various things technically, if the technical requirements are set in the direction that people who are originally close to us will make an additional development, the answer may be that we cannot do it, even though we should be able to respond in essence. In terms of how to organize the detailed requirements, I think it is important to organize the requirements in a new development, a form that can be reused as much as possible, or a form that does not require much additional burden.

The third point is the point described as profitability, and the image of the next utilization. For example, I think that there was a story that such results were obtained as national measures by presenting economic calculations in Digi-in. I think that it is easier for business operators to make decisions when there is a market like this and it will spread like this when they decide to enter the business. I feel that this part is more of a PR than a matter of requirements, and it is a story of social sharing of the effect, but it is easier for the government to appeal to the whole people that such results were obtained later. I think it will be a win-win for both business operators and the government. I would like you to prepare as much as possible for the growth potential of the market and the calculation.

In addition, on page 31 at the end of the report, I believe that it is included that validation and reviews will be repeated. On the other hand, first of all, I believe that certain matters cannot be fully advanced, but for example, in the report of the first half of the regulatory reform Promotion Conference, regarding the part of type certification, it is written that there is a recognition of the problem that performance approach in a modern sense is not sufficiently done in the sense of using new technology. First of all, while updating, I hope that other areas will be taken over by Digital Agency, and RegTech will be rotated in a broader sense. If discussions on specific themes progress in regulatory reform, I believe that we may consult with you.

That's all for my comments.

Chairman: . As long as it is a business, whether or not there is a prospect of being able to scale, the Apita of Technology development will be determined there.

Member Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: Thank you very much. Happy New Year. We look forward to seeing you again this year.

I am always amazed to learn that we continue to achieve great results.

I may be a little out of focus, but as a story about the place where Mr. Masashima and Mr. Ochiai did not apply, Mr. Masashima said that there might be a company that does not realize that there is actually a technology that can be used. This is a bit of an idea while listening to this story, but using methods such as SF prototyping and speculative design, regardless of how it will be done, I think it may be an interesting initiative from the perspective of inspiring companies to use such a session at RegTech Cafe, etc., and to try to include sessions that lead to the realization that this technology can be used for this, or to try to incorporate the opinions of people who are specialized in it. I am sorry for asking this on a whim, but I thought so while visiting, so I would like to make a few comments.

That's all.

Chairman: .

Member Uenoyama, please go ahead.

Member Uenoyama: Thank you, . In the main premise that it is wonderful that a very strong promotion is moving, I have two points.

The first one is exactly what Mr. Masashima said, and this is a plan for quite a few specific actions. Regarding RegTech, I think there is a debate over whether it should be done like a webinar that is collected across VCs, but I think it is possible to make good use of the RegTech Cafe, but there are only 30-40 core VCs, so if we conduct a webinar across VCs, I think there will be a significant movement in the sense that we have not yet been able to match them. What he is saying is that capitalists are basically looking for new markets, and they want to support the companies they invest in in terms of how to grow them, so there are not so many VCs, so if a capitalist comes across to them, he will come to 30-40 companies, and they will match them with about 1,000 companies in the brain, and they will act as if they are connecting them to the window. I think it does not take much time or cost, so I think there are quite a few VCs who can connect you, and I think I can collect them relatively well. I think there are various things such as involving the Venture Capital Association, and it is a very specific story, but that is the first story.

The second is that it is moving in a very good manner, so if we are even more greedy, it may be a mid-term story, but I believe that the involvement and contact points of the ministries and agencies in charge of regulation will be updated in Technology Map or connected to regulation when the technology catalog of procurement is released in the future. I believe that various moves have already been made to determine how to successfully involve stakeholders there, but as part of devising such a part, for example, it is not so difficult to create an agent who can listen to how to use Technology Map by chat, and there is also an idea to use digital well. I believe that it is very important to successfully engage in the involvement part. Also, there is involvement.

I'm sorry, the latter half is a bit of a fuzzy expression, but these two points are big.

Chairman: . I see. We should start from the VC side. That's certainly an option.

Mr. Iwamura, please.

Iwamura Member: Thank you very much. Everyone, I would like to ask for your continued support this year.

As the RegTech cycle is steadily moving, I have the impression that the scenery of regulatory reform has changed greatly. We are also introducing businesses with advanced technologies, and if there is anything I can do for you, I would like to hear from you in the future.

I would like to make one point. It is currently being sent out in Japanese, but please tell us your thoughts on the utilization of overseas business operators and the uptake of overseas knowledge at this point. I understand that the proposal to utilize VCs is also aimed at the expansion of business operators, but I would appreciate if you could tell us your thoughts on how to develop and expand in the future.

Chairman: Thank you very much.

Then, Ochiai members, please.

Ochiai Member: .

One thing I noticed while listening to your discussions is that if we make it even clearer to connect to the public procurement, I think that the significance of taking action here will be conveyed to such VCs and startups. Public procurement is also a digital marketplace, SBIR, or, for example, a discretionary one. In some cases, technology substitution is not necessarily limited to software, and I think technology substitution will progress in some ways, including new initiatives related to hardware. I think regulatory reform and the Fair Trade Commission have been talking about software, but on the other hand, Startup procurement, including its physical layer, or SBIR, may be more like that, but if we can connect these efforts while developing them, I feel that we will be closer to the completion of the ecosystem.

That's all.

Chairman: .

If you have any comments from Counselor Suga, please let me know.

Councilor Suga: I think it is the base figure when calculating the . Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions as always.

First of all, I think that our efforts are to create a market called RegTech in a broad sense, but I think that it is true that many people do not realize that they are RegTech. Since it is a market that originally did not exist, I think that it is possible for us to use the technology that we have for other purposes, so I want people to be aware of this from various angles, so I am holding various events. In order to make it profitable, I think that it is a little bit of a market to take a development of technology just to comply with regulation. On the other hand, the compliance market in regulation is a very stable market in a sense, and I think that it should be a fairly attractive market because there is no need for a safe regulation in the future. I would like to maximize its potential.

At that time, I received one keyword, Public procurement, but if Digital Marketplace is only a SaaS in a sense, I would like to follow it including others. As a feeling of adjustment, there are surprisingly few occasions where the government directly procurement technology, and in many cases, I feel that companies and field sites, including extra-departmental organizations, are being thrown. Here, it is possible that local government is design regulation more manually and is working on compliance, so I would like to firmly cooperate with local government.

In addition, regarding startups, I think there are two main layers, the phase of validation operations and the layer of individual technologies and solutions that are listed in the catalog. In both cases, I have confirmed that many startups have entered. I received advice earlier on how to use the wisdom of VCs. When we started the consortium, we asked VCs to cooperate with us, including the VC Association. However, since then, we have not been able to ask for anything specific. I would like to think about how we can plan a RegTech cafe with cooperation.

Another major category is the involvement of the regulation review side or the authorities. In fact, we have not yet been able to observe so much information that has reached the point of performance approach. It is rather easy to delete the information by saying that regulation does not need to be protected or that it does not need to be done in analog form. Instead, it is quite intellectually costly for the authorities to intelligently update regulation, such as performance approach. If there are a few models or examples of how this works, I think we can go one step further. I would like to think about how to cooperate with and provide support to the ministries and agencies in charge of regulation who seem to have the strength to go to such places, and how to provide support, including the use of chat.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Keidanren for introducing many business operators. Overseas business operators have already entered the market. We have received many proposals in the catalog.

On the other hand, the reason why we are inviting applications in Japanese is that we thought for a moment about converting them into English. But in the end, if we want to protect regulation Safety, we need a system that has a base in regulation and can provide after-sales service to people who use Japanese technology. It is difficult to sell them as they are, and I think Okinawa is particularly important. In that sense, we may ask for at least the ability to read Japanese. At this point, we are inviting applications in Japanese. I would like to consider whether or not to convert the results into English at the necessary timing.

That's all.

Chairman: .

But even so, I thought it was amazing. The 4th to 5th pages of the slide are amazing, even though it may be said that professionals think about this much. You divide the screen and show the realistic reinforcement on the left side, and the relevant part of the application form on the right side. You do it while looking at both. I'm impressed. Thank you very much.

Masujima Member: Thank you, Can you provide information on the expected market size at the time of application? In the end, whether or not everyone will enter the market depends on how many markets there are, so it doesn't have to be correct, but if you put out the information together with the information that this much is expected, I think everyone will change their eyes. Even if you involve VC people, it will be impossible to say that you can go to the investment destination without that information. I feel that whether or not you can make it is the key to the competition.

Councilor Suga: I think it is the base figure when calculating the economic effect, but I would like to consider such a figure when I have a conversation with VCs.

Chairman: .

Next is agenda 2, "Base Registry and Institutional Issue - Address and Location Relationship Database (base registry for address)". Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and Personal Information Protection Commission are also participating in this matter.

First of all, I would like to hear an explanation from Mr. Keibo Ura, Counselor of the Secretariat.

Councilor Base Registry.

Thank you for your guidance on the Base Registry since last year. The progress up to today is summarized on page 2, but last year, we received an introduction from a business operator in private sector about the needs of the Base Registry regarding addresses and locations, and proceeded with discussions. After that, we showed what we would like to aim for and the schedule interval.

As we move forward with more specific initiatives, as described in (I) and (ii), I would like to ask for your guidance on what needs to be organized in order to develop the base registry and what needs to be organized in order to disclose the land number information.

As a review, I would like to briefly explain the efforts of the Base Registry. On page 3, the address and location data of each competent ministry and agency and each business operator are managed separately. In that case, it will be difficult to promote cooperation on the address and location data, so we would like to aim for cooperation in base registry for address and utilization in private business by developing it as master data in public authorities.

On page 4, the specific image of the information to be maintained in the base registry is, from the left, the address information managed by the municipality, and the real estate registry information owned by the Ministry of Justice, which includes the lot number, and we are aiming to use it as a base registry for address by assigning an ID or linking it to various public authorities and private business, and to make it possible to search by using each information as a key.

There are various types of Issue, which are summarized on page 5. First of all, we will develop the initial data. Among them, the future Issue is to determine the method of how to link the residence indication (address information) and the lot number. In addition, after the initial data is created, we need to consider how to update the data, how to ensure the freshness, and how to improve the content of the data.

Regarding the overall schedule on page 6, first of all, there are not so many updates for town letters, so I expect that it will be possible to collect information in the current business flow. On the other hand, more detailed information than that is updated daily, so I think it will be difficult to assume analog business. In the future, I think it is necessary to consider digitalization and systematization.

From the point I explained, first of all, regarding the residential indication (address information), we will consider it in conjunction with the development of the registration information system from fiscal 2027. Prior to that, in rough schedule, we would like to aim to provide twenty twenty-five as a characteristic at the town and village level.

From page 7, I would like to start with today's main topic. First of all, regarding the development of addresses and locations, we will calmly proceed with the collection of information from local government in order to develop town information. As I mentioned earlier, we will consider how to develop a system for information that is lower in level and more detailed in granularity, but I believe it is necessary to carefully start with an investigation of the actual situation.

Page 8 is about the development of town information. First of all, you can think of the initial data as being in the confirmation phase. At this point, we have basically collected town information, and with the cooperation of local government in advance, we are currently conducting confirmation and validation on what kind of confirmation method will not be charged to local government. When we reach a conclusion, we will ask all local government to confirm it.

As for the content of the update 2, the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan is currently requesting local government to provide information based on the Survey Act, and Digital Agency is currently considering the development of a law to properly develop a database including base registry for address as a national policy. When that is completed, the government will cooperate with Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and ask local government to provide the information. In this way, we would like to start the development and operation of the town information using the twenty twenty-five as the Merck mark.

On page 9, in addition to the details of the granularity rather than the town name, we conducted various survey in local government last year, and we received responses from more than 200 local government. About 70% of local government has developed and operates a paper residence indication ledger, which is quite difficult for both of us. However, if the government develops a common system, about 80% of local government would like to use it. We expect that there is a high need for systemization, so we would like to consider how to develop the system, including how the system should be, based on the efficiency of the local government business. local government

On page 10, the second agenda item today is about the treatment of lot numbers. We are considering it because it needs to be dealt with from the perspective of personal data conservation. In providing lot number information to base registry for address, the method is divided into two stages. First, a base registry for real estate registry information is still being developed, or it is being used for demonstration projects, and base registry for address is being treated as a separate entity in Digital Agency. In the first stage, we will take out the lot number information from the map data provided by the registry office, which is public data, and put it into base registry for address.

As for the second stage, when the real estate registry Base Registry is fully operated, it will be transferred to base registry for address. The real estate registry Base Registry will be maintained in a cleaned form so that it can be distributed to each ministry in information linkages. So, it will be smooth to transfer the information from here, so we are thinking of this form for the second stage.

In that case, since public information is used in the first stage, if we properly manage the information on base registry for address and real estate registry, it will be possible to sort out that base registry for address does not fall under personal data.

On the other hand, regarding the second step, the real estate registry Base Registry contains information on land owners and others, and since it is in personal data, it may fall under the category of personal data because it is a system linked to personal data, so we would like to sort out what kind of response is necessary based on the Okinawa Protection Act and proceed with specific consideration. Today, we would like to proceed with future consideration while receiving opinions from legal experts.

That's all for the explanation. Thank you.

Chairman Ahn: Thank you very much, Counsellor Chongpo.

Next, I would like to hear your opinion from Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. I would appreciate it if you could turn on the camera and microphone and speak.

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Mr. Hara, Manager): I'm Hara from Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Municipal Division, . Nice to meet you.

Based on Digital Agency's explanation earlier, we recognize that the development of base registry for address is an important initiative for local government from the perspective of contributing to the efficiency of administrative procedures. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications will cooperate with local government toward the start of the development and operation of town and village information, aiming for twenty twenty-five, while taking into consideration the workload of Digital Agency.

That is all.

Chairman: .

I'm sorry to interrupt, but Counselor local government, I would like to confirm something. It is the 9th slide. This is the result of asking local government, but the percentage in the pie graph on the lower right shows the number of Hamamatsu of 225.

Councilor : That's right.

Chairman: based on the population and number of buildings, rather than the number of local government itself, I feel that the rate of systemization and the need for maintenance will probably increase much. What do you think?

Councilor itself was not weighted in that way. There are various sizes, and in a large local government, there are cases where systemization has already advanced, and cases where it has not. I do not know what will happen, but in any case, I think the conclusion itself that there is a high need for a system will not change.

Chairman: Yes, thank you very much.

Next, I would like to hear your opinion from Personal Information Protection Commission, but there is something I would like to ask in advance.

First of all, regarding the case of using the map provided by the registry office, you explained that it does not fall under the category of personal data, and I would like to ask your opinion on this arrangement.

Second, regarding the use of the real estate registry Base Registry, I would like to ask your views on the reason why it may fall under personal data and the points to be noted in the response based on that. I would appreciate if you could turn on the camera and microphone and speak. Thank you.

Personal Information Protection Commission (Councilor Yoshiya): I'm Personal Information Protection Commission . Nice to meet you.

There were two questions. Before I get into the first issue, I would like to explain the definition. Article 2, paragraph 1, item 1 of the personal data Protection Act states that personal data includes information that can be easily collated with other information and thereby identify specific individuals. Therefore, whether or not it can be easily collated is a very big issue. In addition, with regard to the fact that it can be easily collated with other information, it is assumed that it can be easily collated with other information by a method common to ordinary office work and business in public authorities, etc.

On the other hand, because it is not the case, there are some conditions in this regard. I would like to tell you some of the conditions. First of all, one of the conditions is that each department handled by public authorities has acquired personal data independently, and each department has set up its own database, etc., which are stored separately. In addition, regarding the state of operation, one of the conditions is that it is strictly prohibited in terms of regulations and operation for both departments or the department or person in charge of both departments to handle both databases. In addition, based on the current conditions, if the information on both databases cannot be collated by a general method without special cost and effort, it is considered to be in a state where it cannot be easily collated.

Based on this premise, in the case of using the map provided by the registry office this time, I have heard that the registration information of the real estate and the address and location information handled by base registry for address are acquired independently and are stored in different handling departments. In addition, if the access restrictions I mentioned earlier are in place, it can be judged that they cannot be easily collated, so in that case, it will not fall under personal data.

On the other hand, I would like to ask another question. Regarding the use of the real estate registry Base Registry, I have heard that part of the registration data, such as the parcel number, from the Real Estate Base Registry will be used internally by base registry for address. Therefore, it is considered that each piece of information can be easily collated, and therefore, a specific person can be identified. Therefore, we believe that the information corresponds to personal data.

In addition, I believe that the real estate registry Base Registry will be used in the future, but as a basis for using and providing the personal data in the future from now on, I believe that it is possible to use and provide it for the specified purpose of use in accordance with Article 61 (1) and Article 69 (1) of the Act.

That's all.

Chairman: .

As you have just taught, the arrangement can be different between the first stage and the second stage, but I understand that from what perspective the arrangement is different is that it is also different in terms of ease of verification as you have just taught. Is that correct?

Also, I would like to ask how the handling of address and location information on base registry for address in the first stage will be evaluated under the Personal Information Act. What do you think?

Personal Information Protection Commission (Councilor Yoshiya): I'm Personal Information Protection Commission As you said, we recognize that whether or not there is easy verification is a very big point.

I will not repeat it, but in short, if it is the first stage, it can be judged that it is not easily collated, so it can be treated as not being a personal data. Based on that premise, it is not a personal data because it cannot be easily collated, and it is understood that it is the first stage that it can be used without being subject to the discipline of the personal data Protection Act.

That's all.

Chairman: .

Please let me know if you have any comments or questions, including the explanation by Mr. Ryoo Miura and the statements by Mr. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and Mr. Personal Information Protection Commission.

Mr. Masashima, please.

Masujima Member: Thank you, .

Thank you for your explanation. I have received an explanation in advance, so I would like to report the answer there and share a few items with you.

In your report, you explained that when you arrange it, you will be asked to use kana, and it is a matter to be shared with everyone that the way of reading is uniquely determined by the way of reading.

Another point I would like you to share with us is that during the period from the twenty twenty-five to 2027, there will be only town letters, but at the stage when only town letters are published, I would like you to share some information on how they can be used during this period, and what kind of good things there are if town letters are published first.

That's all.

Chairman: I understand.

What do you think about the second point, Councilor Lin Po? You pointed out what good things there are.

Councilor .

On the last page of the materials, I have attached a reference. As is the case with full investigation with My Number this time, when it comes to addresses, the shaking of notation is a very big Issue. This is also happening at the level of town letters. For example, even if you take Kasumigaseki, there are various kinds of shaking of notation, such as the shaking of Okurigana, the presence or absence of Okurigana, the fact that the letters are variant characters, and the fact that it is not possible to understand whether they are Katakana or Kanji only by handwriting. By arranging this in a sense, it is possible to smoothly use the information of residence indication and address when comparing information. And if we can work on the system, I think local government will benefit from the fact that administrative operation can be performed without shaking of notation from the beginning without handwriting. In addition, I have heard expectations that private business will solve the difficulty of data connections when there is a shake around here.

I would like to make a supplementary note on how to read it. As we confirm with local government in the future, I have heard that there are places in local government that do not necessarily disclose the standard way of reading that this is the correct answer. As for what to do with such places, the more concrete it becomes, the smaller Issue will be, and we must consider various ways to do so.

Chairman: . The reading is not necessarily fixed.

Member of Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much.

I believe that the arrangement is gradually progressing. First of all, in the explanation by Councilor Yoshiya earlier, in terms of the handling of parcel numbers, it is an issue that has great ease of collation, but I understand that the actual issue is access controls. Regarding access controls, I think there are some remaining issues on whether what is currently expected in Digital Agency corresponds to the access restrictions you mentioned. It may be better to ask Councilor Mitsuura first, but what kind of access controls do you expect?

Chairman: ?

Councilor .

For example, in terms of access restrictions, Digital Agency can naturally control who can and cannot access the folders in which data is stored on a personal basis, so I believe it is possible to respond according to the level as necessary. I believe that detailed adjustments will be made again in terms of how to assign personnel and supervisors, but I believe that appropriate access control can be implemented unless the request is extremely unreasonable.

Ochiai Member: I understand. Thank you very much.

I heard that technical control will be applied so that each person in charge will not have access to both of the two databases, and the rules that will be the premise will be developed. If so, I think that it will be satisfied if it is done so much, but I don't know if you can ask the MIC and answer right now, but I feel that it is considered to be reasonably access-controlled. What do you think?

Chairman: , what do you think?

Personal Information Protection Commission (Councilor Yoshiya): I'm Personal Information Protection Commission .

I am sorry, but I am not in a position to say that it is okay to listen to what you have just said, so I can only say that it is okay to do it properly. However, what I was very concerned about in what you have just said is that access control to folders will be strict, but as I mentioned earlier, it will be strict in terms of regulations and operations, but I just can't say that it is okay at this point because I don't know what will happen if folder restrictions are imposed but various things are broken as a result. Therefore, I don't intend to say that this is personal data at all, but I think it is enough to say that this part will be done properly.

Therefore, as a flip side of restricting access, I think it is enough to firmly establish operational rules and ensure that they are strictly followed.

That's all.

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much. I think you answered clearly enough, and I thought that the maintenance of regulations and management of operation status are important points to keep in mind.

Next, regarding the second point, regarding future use, I believe that it is possible to use it under Article 69, Paragraph 1 of the Act. On the other hand, there are cases where institutional Issue has been continuously made in relation to the base registry. I think it is important to continue to see whether it can actually be implemented under Article 69, Paragraph 1 of the Act, including the identification of the purpose. First of all, regarding the second point, that is the content.

In addition, regarding the first issue, I believe that Mr. Masushima pointed out the parts that are unstable and the parts in kana earlier, but I think that it is in the midst of the fact that there are many different forms of real estate registration, residential indication, and other drawings, so there are very complicated parts. I understand that the development will be centered on the information on the real estate registry book side, or there will be complications that will easily break down if you try to connect all of them, so I would like you to expand the scope to the extent possible.

In addition, Mr. Masashima talked about how it can be used, which I believe is in common with the digital catalog in the previous agenda. It is very important to be able to use it because it is a business operator or a public service. In that sense, as you show on page 9 and so on, regarding the point that delivery can be made reasonably and efficiently, I think we will first narrow down the use cases. On the other hand, due to the complexity of the database, it is almost impossible to integrate everything into one database or one initiative. In that case, I think we should narrow down the use cases and appeal to that point, and expand it as much as possible while asking people around the world to say that this is a wonderful initiative. At this point, there are some parts that are embedded in a certain type of database, but first of all, we need to raise the level of usability a little higher, and then, within that, I think it is important to sort out the building numbers within the necessary range so that they can be delivered to them, or to sort them out in a way that gives them the uniqueness necessary for the service. However, in the end, it will be possible to use it for general purposes, so I don't think there are parts that can be specialized only for that, but first of all, I would like to see some of the results, so that it can be used in an integrated manner.

It's been a long time, but that's all.

Chairman: . Well, it's always a question of whether to narrow down the use cases or whether it's general-purpose.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

If you have any comments on the previous statements, please let me know.

Councilor .

With regard to personal data conservation, I would like to work out the details of properly developing the operation system going forward, so I will elaborate the policies and so on.

In addition, as you pointed out, we have been considering how to utilize this, including use cases. Since last year, we have been considering use cases based on the announcement by private business, but I believe that this will be reported in the form of a consultation on your concerns. In a sense, the more detailed and convenient we use, the more we step into the area of private sector's efforts, and I believe that it is necessary to further discuss the appropriate extent of the roles of the Government in this area.

With regard to the use of public authorities, as I mentioned earlier, in the base registry of real estate registry and efforts to distribute registration information to public authorities and other places, cooperation with public authorities is being made, and in local government, I have heard that there are many cases where people go to see the registration information. It seems that there is a system in which local government can go to see it for free in the form of a so-called official request, but it is a great advantage that it can be done online by the development of the real estate registry base registry, whereas it is currently done manually, on paper, or on site. I would like to think about improving the convenience of the whole, the lives of the people, and the convenience of the businesses of public authorities and private sector in total through the efforts of the base registry.

We look forward to your continued guidance.

Chairman: . I believe you have made a series of remarks.

Even so, I think the task of linking and updating five pages will be really difficult when I think about it. And if I could do that, it would be really epoch-making. Thank you very much. Please continue to support me.

Then, Mr. Hara and everyone from Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Mr. Yoshiya and everyone from the Personal Information Committee, thank you for your hard work. Please leave here.

Now that we have completed the agenda for today, I would like to have a final word from Director-General Tomiyasu.

Director-General Tomiyasu: Thank you very much, Mr. Yasutoshi . Thank you very much to all the members for coming today.

First of all, I would like to thank you very much. At the last Digital Related System Reform Review Meeting in December, I explained the action plan for the data strategy, and I received many very good opinions from the members. Despite the extremely tight schedule, we were able to make revisions, and thanks to you, we were able to put together the plan. First of all, I would like to thank you very much.

There were two topics on the agenda today, but I would like to report on the progress of technology-based regulatory reform and work steadily on it. In addition, I believe that you gave me very good opinions and advice today on the discovery of businesses, opportunities for companies to realize the possibility of a potential development, and how to expand the scope of the Issue. It is a very large region for us, so I would like to consider it based on your opinions.

As for the second base registry, the Government of Japan has not been able to thoroughly carry out this kind of thing until now because Digital Agency was established, so I believe that we are really required to do this. We have received various opinions today, and the relevant ministries and agencies are cooperating very much, so I would like to proceed steadily, so I would also like to ask for your support.

Thank you very much for your time today.

Chairman: , thank you very much.

As for the action plan for the data strategy that you just mentioned, you have successfully created that much in a short period of time. Thank you very much, everyone in charge. I think it will probably be incorporated into high-level policy documents and actually used. Thank you very much.

Then, I would like to ask the secretariat to explain about the holding of the next review meeting.

Secretariat (Ishii): Thank you very much, .

Finally, I would like to explain the schedule of the next review meeting and the handling of the minutes. The secretariat will contact you later on the schedule of the next review meeting.

In addition, regarding today's proceedings, I will prepare the minutes later and disclose them after confirming them with everyone. The materials will also be disclosed on the website of the Digital System Reform Review Committee later.

That's all for the explanation. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Chairman: With this, we conclude the 3rd Digital System Reform Review Meeting.

Thank you very much.