Electronic Power of Attorney Law Enforcement Review Meeting (5th)

Since five years have passed since the enforcement of the Act on Promotion of Dissemination of Electronic Power of Attorney (Act No. 64 of 2017), the Committee on the Status of Enforcement of the Electronic Power of Attorney Act will be held pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Act on Promotion of Dissemination of Electronic Power of Attorney in order to inspect the status of enforcement and examine future directions.

Overview

Date and Time: From December 6, 2023 (Wed) to December 13, 2023 (Wed)
Location: Online via email
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. Exchange of opinions toward the compilation of the results of the study
3. Adjournment

Materials

Relevant policies

Electronic Power of Attorney Act

Minutes

Date

From December 6, 2023 (Wednesday) to December 13, 2023 (Wednesday)

Location

Held online via email

Attendees

UEHARA Tetsutaro (Professor, Faculty of Information Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University)
Soshi Hamaguchi (Senior Staff Member, Keio University SFC Research Institute)
Hiroshi Miyauchi (Attorney, Miyauchi & Mizumachi IT Law Office)
Rie Yamaguchi (Associate Professor, Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering, The University of
Keiko Itakura (Head of Security, Medley Corporate Design Department, Inc.)
Reiko Kasai (Manager, Digital Solution Promotion Department, LAWSON Incubation Company, Inc.)

Observer

Digital Trust Association
Council for Cloud-based Electronic Signature Services
Japanese Institute of Certified Public
Japan Federation of Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists Associations

Minutes

Member Kasai:

On page 13, "3. Direction of Arrangement and Response in Issue", since it is suddenly included in the specific content of Issue and arrangement after the title, I think it would be easier to read if there was a lead sentence on why it is explained separately in (1), (2), and (3) below. Since the members understand the flow of the four Committees so far, they have background knowledge such as the need to arrange electronic contracts before the spread of electronic power of attorney in the first place, but for those who read only the report, it seems confusing why the focus is suddenly on electronic contracts.
In "(2) Issue and Direction of Response regarding Materials such as Guidelines" on page 14, as the fourth point of Issue, I would like to add that the benefits of the use of electronic contracts and electronic signatures other than stamp tax reduction are not widely understood by merging the opinions of the Imperial Household Committee and myself at the 4th Review Meeting. How about communicating the benefits in the Guidelines, etc., such as reducing the burden of administrative processing and document management in electronic contracts, simplifying the procedures in a form in which the accuracy of electronic power of attorney is guaranteed, and providing an agency means for those who cannot make electronic contracts for some reason?
In "(4) Issue on Internal Regulations and Direction of Response" on page 15, regarding the fact that the development of social regulations on electronic signatures has not advanced, I think it would be better to include the results of the survey (questionnaire survey on commercial registration and contract conclusion practices of companies) by the Study Group on General Provisions of the Commercial Code and Commercial Law (Representative: Makiko Shimizu, Professor of the Graduate School of Law, Osaka University) in the Notes as evidence.
Thank you for allowing me to participate in the discussion on a very deep theme. From the perspective of private sector companies, we are in a very transitional period regarding analog "stamping" and digital "electronic contracts, electronic signatures, and electronic power of attorney." Therefore, I expect the promotion of a guide that private sector companies can use with peace of mind in a timely manner.

Imperial Household Commissioner:

In the second paragraph on page 9, there are 5-6 "× ×" in the section about the outline of the accreditation criteria. The sentence is long and very difficult to read. Why don't you itemize them?
Regarding the "Electronic procurement System" at the beginning of the third paragraph on p. 10, I think it would be easier to understand if it were "Government Electronic procurement System." I think the GEPS website also uses "government."
The table on p. 11 is difficult to read. I think it would be better to devise ways to make the correspondence between individual numbers and total numbers easier to understand.

Mr. Ikada of the Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants:

In (a) of "(1) Issue on the Dissemination of Electronic Power of Attorney" on page 17, there is a description of "easy delegation," but I think there is no such thing as "easy delegation." Here, I think that it is probably intended to be an "electronic power of attorney with a low credit rating," but I think that an electronic power of attorney is not a high or low credit rating, but an alternative of having or not having one. I think that the high or low credit rating is caused by the accuracy of the identity confirmation of the settlor or trustee appearing in the electronic power of attorney (whether or not the identity confirmation is strict), so I think that it would be more accurate to use an expression such as a "power of attorney based on simple identity confirmation" or make such a supplement.

Secretariat / Tonami:

As you pointed out, the point of "easy delegation" is considered to be related to factors such as the relationship of trust between the mandator / agent and the person who receives and confirms the power of attorney, in addition to the level of identity verification. On the other hand, this statement also takes into account the point that it may not cover the delegation between family members, etc. Based on this point, we would like to consult with the chairman about the wording so that we can clarify the purpose.

Member Itakura:

Regarding the comment with a frame in Figure 2-6 on page 8, it seems that it ends in the middle, so I think it is better to devise the expression and writing method.
In F on "(1) Issue on the Dissemination of Electronic Power of Attorney in Electronic Contracts in General," on page 13, "touch" appears, but I have the impression that it is a more casual expression than other phrases.
In (a) of "(1) online application and Response Directions regarding the Spread of Issue by Agents" on page 16, the expressions "hidden mandate" and "hidden proxy" appear, but I think it is better to explain them a little more carefully.

Member Hamaguchi:

I checked the content including the comments of other members.

Commissioner Yamaguchi:

There was also a comment from Commissioner Itakura, but I feel uncomfortable with the expression "feel" on page 13. I agree with this intention, but I think it would be fine to use a slightly more rigid expression in the report.
Regarding the "Direction of Response to Issue" described in 3., while the method based on the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act is considered to be closer to the current system, I think it is good to state that the more convenient method will be more popular. In the end, I think it is based on use cases.

Secretariat / Tonami:

Thank you very much for your confirmation of the report (draft) and your comments. Based on the comments received, we consulted with Chairman Uehara at the Secretariat.
Regarding the point of "texture," as Mr. Yamaguchi and Mr. Itakura expressed their opinions, we would like to change the expression from "texture" to "difficulty in understanding the mechanism" or "difficulty in understanding the mechanism."
In addition, regarding "easy delegation," Mr. Ikada of the Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants pointed out that "a power of attorney based on simple identification" is more appropriate than "a need for easy delegation." However, since it is Issue that "there is no need for easy delegation" and it is described for the purpose of covering delegation between family members, etc., we would like to emphasize that it is Issue that "there is no need for easy delegation."
With regard to the "Direction of Response to Issue," I would like to consider whether it is possible to make a brief statement about the consideration of the "use cases base," which Commissioner Yamaguchi pointed out.

Chairman Uehara:

The remaining work will be carried out by the Secretariat and the Chairman. Regarding the final version, could you leave it to the Chairman? (→ No objection)
In addition, regarding the expression "touch" that was discussed a little, I am not so particular about it, but in short, I would like to express well that the relationship between the act of affixing a seal as an expression of intent and the remaining seal is easy to understand, and that it is easy for anyone to understand, including the counterfeiting risk and the prevention method.

Imperial Household Commissioner:

Regarding "Touch", I call this kind of thing "Life Realization". In other words, it is important to obtain a sense of reality rooted in normal activities (daily life), and within that, the effect of using a certain mechanism or function can be recognized (therefore, effective measures can be taken to prevent counterfeiting and abuse). In that sense, "Touch" can be another word, but I think it is important to describe it. I will leave the method of description to you, so please.

End