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 ".

Electronic Power of Attorney Law Enforcement Review Meeting (2nd)

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: Wednesday, September 27, 2023, from 10:45 to 12:15
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Status of Enforcement of the Electronic Power of Attorney Act
      2. Directions for future dissemination
    3. Adjournment

Event Information

Materials

References

Relevant policies

Minutes

Date

Wednesday, September 27, 2023, from 10:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.

Location

Online

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

  • Japanese Institute of Certified Public
  • Japan Federation of Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists Associations

Minutes

Digital Agency Tonami:
We are a little behind schedule due to a problem with the distribution, but we will hold the second meeting of the Electronic Power of Attorney Law Enforcement Status Review Meeting from now. Thank you very much for coming today despite your busy schedule. I am Tonami of Digital Agency, and I will serve as the secretariat. Nice to meet you.

Before the meeting, I would like to confirm today's materials. As per the agenda of the meeting sent in advance, I have sent the agenda, Materials 1 to 2, and Reference Materials 1 to 3 to all members of the Committee by e-mail. Today's materials are also posted on the Digital Agency website, so please check them if you are attending. In addition, the Japan Federation of Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists Associations and the Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants will participate as observers in today's review meeting. Thank you very much.

Then, I would like to ask Chairman Uehara to proceed with the proceedings from now on. Chairman Uehara, please.

Chairman:
Thank you very much for coming to the second meeting. Today is scheduled to take one and a half hours, including hearing, but there is quite a lot of content, so I would like to proceed with the meeting with your cooperation. Thank you very much.

Now, I would like to move on to the first item on the agenda. Please let me have a report from the Secretariat on the status of implementation of the Electronic Power of Attorney Act in Item 1.

Secretariat Tonami:
Prior to Agenda 1, we would like to keep Reference Material 2 for today private in accordance with the Guidelines for the Meeting because it is related to business secrets of certified electronic power of attorney handling business operators and is information that was provided on the premise of non-disclosure. Please confirm the consent, etc. of the committee members with Chairman Uehara.

Chairman:
I would like to take the procedure to keep this private. Is it all right with you, members? If you have any objections or opinions, please let me know. Is it all right with you? Then, this will be kept private. Thank you.

Now, I would like to move on to the status of implementation of Agenda 1. Please let me know the report from the Secretariat.

Secretariat Tonami:
Then, I will explain in accordance with Material 1. Have you shared your screen? Now, I would like to report on the status of enforcement of the Electronic Power of Attorney Act.

Today, following the first review meeting, I would like to report on the results of the questionnaire survey that was to be conducted at the first review meeting and the survey on the use of electronic power of attorney in the local local government that was to be conducted at the first review meeting.

First, the results of the questionnaire are reported. Regarding all six companies that handle electronic power of attorney, which are certified under the Electronic Power of Attorney Act, questions are asked about the status of use of electronic power of attorney and future expansion of use, including factors that hinder the spread of use, uses that are expected to be used other than the current use, factors that hinder the expansion of use, and requests for systems.

I would like to explain the results. First, regarding the status of use of electronic power of attorney, all of the currently issued electronic power of attorney can be used for the National Tax Administration Agency e-Tax, local tax eLTAX, and Digital Agency GEPS. In addition, regarding the use of electronic power of attorney other than e-Tax, eLTAX, and GEPS, the electronic power of attorney handling business operator does not understand how it is used by the private sector.

Due to time constraints, I cannot present all of your opinions. As a question on future use expansion, there is an opinion that one of the factors hindering the spread of the current use is that the procedures can be completed if the electronic signatures of the representatives are used as they are, so the significance of using electronic power of attorney is not felt. In addition, the recipient of the electronic power of attorney needs to make a development on the interface. I think there is no problem in the case of PDF, but if it is incorporated into the system development, such a development needs to be made.

Regarding the questions on what measures the government should take to increase the use of electronic power of attorney and electronic contracts as a whole, including electronic signatures, and what factors could hinder the spread of electronic power of attorney in electronic contracts, there were opinions that there are currently few systems to respond to them, and that there is no common recognition of business practices in electronic contracts, such as the registration seal, square seal, and tally seal of paper contracts, and it is unclear what criteria should be met to make a contract generally accepted, and that they should be clarified.

In addition, regarding the uses that are expected to be utilized in the future other than the current uses, we have received opinions such as the response to the mandator record file method and the business operator record file method in e-Tax and eLTAX, the confirmation of the authority of representation by title, the consolidation of comprehensive authority of representation, the use of corporate identity verification, the use of identity verification at the time of account opening, the efficiency of audit by clarifying the authority of contract, the prevention of abuse, and the observance of compliance.

Regarding the items related to the hindrance of the expansion of use, there were opinions that the name recognition and use value of electronic power of attorney are not yet known, and opinions that online application cannot be made yet, delegation cannot be made even if online application is made, and application for delegation or proxy cannot be made.

As for the system aspect, there were opinions such as that the validity period is not required if the act of commission is specified, and that the electronic contract for the title and the comprehensive authority of representation should be organized and a system should be prepared.

Next, I would like to ask about the questionnaire that we are conducting for validation holders of electronic power of attorney, e-Tax, eLTAX, GEPS, and other government acceptance systems.
At present, hearings are being conducted in conjunction with hearing. This will be reported at the 3rd Review Meeting. However, due to the specifications of the system, there are many validation users who are unable to collect statistical data on the use of electronic power of attorney, and many systems collect data without distinguishing between applications by the Principal and applications by mandate. Therefore, this survey may not be able to obtain useful data for consideration.

In addition, we may not be able to obtain such opinions on the items such as whether or not we have received inquiries from users because such inquiries are often made by business operators who issue electronic power of attorney instead of system operators.

Next, I would like to report on a survey on the status of use of electronic power of attorney in local local government. The Electronic Power of Attorney Act defines the use of electronic power of attorney by corporate representatives, particularly in electronic contracts, but the basic guidelines for promoting the spread of electronic power of attorney also promote the use of electronic power of attorney in procedures for online application, etc. for public authorities. The use of electronic power of attorney for public authorities in online application is currently available for e-Tax, eLTAX, etc. Regarding the status of spread of electronic power of attorney in local governments, we conducted a questionnaire and hearing survey to obtain information necessary for considering future efforts.

In addition, we have prepared a slide on the history of the introduction of electronic power of attorney in the local local government as a reference, so please check it if you like.

There are two main types of proxy applications to a local local government: applications made by residents and applications made by representatives of companies.

Among them, under the Electronic Power of Attorney Act, we mainly work on applications made by corporate representatives.

Purpose and content of the survey. The purpose of the survey is to understand the use of electronic power of attorney in the local local government and to contribute to the discussion on the future spread of electronic power of attorney.

As for the content of the investigation, we have conducted an investigation into three local government that were confirmed to be able to use the electronic power of attorney function and one information system vendor that provides this system. In addition, we are conducting an additional investigation into another company that was found during the hearing with local government. This will be reflected in the materials posted on the website and will be reported to the Committee members by e-mail, etc.

The survey is conducted by answering questionnaires by telephone and e-mail, and conducting hearing.
The questions asked include the history of the introduction of the electronic power of attorney, the status of use, whether residents have received opinions from users, whether the contact person has any opinions on the introduction, and whether there are any requests to the national government.

This is a report of the survey results.
As for the background of the introduction, there were local government where the introduction to the system where the electronic power of attorney can be used was carried out a little while ago and the background of the introduction is unknown, local government where the introduction was made because the information system vendor's system had an electronic power of attorney function and could be used at the time of the introduction of the system, and local government where the introduction was made after active consideration and the introduction was made because there was a proxy application by a family member of a disabled person or a business operator.
In addition, regarding the status of use, we have received reports that almost no local government has been used although it has been introduced.

As for the voices from the users, there were local government who did not receive any particular opinions because the number of users was small in the first place, local government who received an inquiry from an administrative scrivener association about the status of the application for representation, a vendor who received a request for implementation of the function related to the application for representation from an administrative scrivener, and a system vendor who received a request for a note to be written so that a person who is not a professional would not apply for representation as a business.

In terms of requests to the national government, we received opinions that clarifying the official seal of administrative scriveners and improving materials such as how to apply in accordance with the Electronic Power of Attorney Act would help online application in the procedures for digitalization and proxy applications.

In addition, we received opinions that when introducing the mechanism of proxy application and electronic power of attorney, it would be good to show the format and standard flow of the electronic power of attorney that conforms to the laws of each application. In addition, we received opinions that it would be good to organize the parts where simpler and more convenient functions can be used, such as the procedure that requires both the applicant and the proxy to register an account and the applicant to apply for power of attorney and obtain approval from the proxy, the procedure that requires only the proxy to prepare a power of attorney and obtain approval from the mandator, and the procedure that does not require confirmation of the power of attorney if it can be confirmed that the person is a certified administrative procedures legal specialist.

This is the status of the use of electronic power of attorney in the local local government and the arrangement of the Issue.
The proxy application and electronic power of attorney functions themselves are installed in the systems for a local local government of many information system vendors, so they are available in a large number of regions. In the digitization of paper applications, there is a lack of standards and references for which procedures should be performed, what kind of identity confirmation of the agent, and what kind of confirmation of the delegation relationship should be performed, and they are available only for a few procedures in a local government.

In addition, the Proxy Application and Electronic Power of Attorney functions, which can be used only for some applications, are not well known and are hardly used. In addition, there were many implementation where administrative scriveners requested local government for the functions to apply for proxy applications.

Under the Electronic Power of Attorney Act, the Basic Guidelines promote the use of electronic power of attorney in procedures for online application, etc. for public authorities. However, the definition of electronic power of attorney in Article 2 of the Electronic Power of Attorney Act only covers applications made by representatives of companies. However, the results show that the proxy application and electronic power of attorney functions in the local local government system do not functionally distinguish between applications made by representatives of companies and applications made by residents.

That's all for the report on Item 1.
Then, Mr. Uehara, nice to meet you.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Regarding the explanation by the Secretariat, I would like to ask members and observers who have questions or opinions to let us know by a show of hands or a chat function. I would like to ask for the response from the Secretariat to be basically summarized after going through your remarks. In addition, I would like to ask for self-introduction by the observers when they make their first remarks, such as from what perspective they should make comments to this review meeting.
What do you think? If you have any comments, I would like to hear them by show of hands or chat. Mr. Itakura, thank you very much.

Member Itakura:
Let me briefly introduce myself again. I am currently in charge of security at a medical care Healthcare company called Medley. Therefore, I would like to make a statement from the perspective of being in charge of security in private sector.
There are three points I would like to make.

My first question is about the results of the questionnaire to business operators. Regarding the issuance status of electronic power of attorney, in the questionnaire to validation operators on page 11, there was a system in which electronic signatures are applied for validation without distinguishing between applications by the applicant and applications by delegation. I believe that digital signatures will be discussed in the future. One issue is whether the applicant is the applicant or what kind of Trust is required in the case of proxy applications. Therefore, I believe that there is room for further definition of what kind of specifications will be required from the viewpoint of system specifications.

My second question is about representation in applications for local local government. This is more like a personal impression than a person in charge of security. I recently went through the procedure of declaring inheritance tax due to family reasons, and there I wanted to view the Fixed Asset Tax Nayoro Ledger. I thought it would be nice if I could use an electronic power of attorney or apply on behalf of someone. Niigata City is working on such a thing, but my local government is not working on such a thing, and there is a wide variation depending on the local local government, so I wonder if we can improve the room for application a little more.

The other one is on page 20, the last page, which is about the arrangement of Issue, and there are six points listed.
In particular, regarding the fifth point, I do not think it is necessary to limit the definition of electronic power of attorney to B to G, so I recognize that it will be a point of contention in the future, including the revision of this law.
That's all.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Next, Imperial Household Commissioner, nice to meet you.

Imperial Household Commissioner
This is Attorney-in-Law, Mr. Miyauchi. I would like to make some comments. First of all, could you open page 6?
In the past, for example, the president did not affix the representative seal of the representative, but had the General Affairs Division affix it. I think that is the actual situation. Actually, this is not an act of agency, but rather an act of affixing a seal on behalf of the representative. The terms "agency" and "acting on behalf of the representative" are complicated, but I think they have done something like affixing a seal on behalf of the representative.

Considering what is currently written in this document, I think it actually says that there is an actual situation in which someone in the General Affairs Department or the like acts on behalf of the President's electronic signature. In reality, there are many cases in large companies where the President does not do it himself, and in the case of elderly Presidents, there are cases where they do it. I think it is possible to understand that there is an actual situation.
The problem is, as is often said in security, passwords are basically like toothbrushes, and it is a general rule not to share them with your family or girlfriend. I think it is probably true that there is such an actual situation that the president's password is shared or taught. We need to sort this out in some way, and think about how to do it without doing that.
One is to use the Electronic Power of Attorney Act, and if it is a remote signature, there are various ways to increase the number of users who can sign with a remote signature, such as increasing the number of users who can sign with a remote signature, which is the same as depositing a seal. Including this, I think it is necessary to look at the actual situation of how the electronic signature of the current representative is handled, and consider how to organize it, or how to proceed with it, although it is strange to say guide or guidance.

As for page 10, in (ii), I understand in a way that the validity period is not required if the act of commission is specified. In our business, for example, we issue a power of attorney to the court and act as an agent, but in this case, we do not know how many years the trial will take, so it is true that it is very troublesome if the validity period is limited. However, there are such things, but for a single act or a type of act that has an extremely short period of time, for example, when acting as an agent for a sales contract, it is over after the act is completed, so it is unlikely that it will take 10 or 20 years. In such a case, even if there is a validity period, it will not be a problem, and even if it is 1 or 2 years, it will not be a problem. Therefore, the validity period in (ii) is case-by-case, and it is an individual act, so I do not think it can be said that the validity period is not required. I think this also needs to be sorted out.

Also, (5), as I have been saying, I think it is possible to use electronic power of attorney as a basis for electronic signatures of executives in the company. If this goes well, it will spread widely.

I have one more question. Could you turn to page 19?
I would like to ask you about the clarification of the handling of official seals of administrative scriveners, which is in the first line, because I don't know what it means. I didn't know whether you were talking about physical seals or what you were going to do with electronic ones, so I would like you to explain what the purpose of the clarification of the handling of official seals of administrative scriveners is.
That's all from me.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. We will ask the secretariat to answer all of them later. Thank you, Mr. Hamaguchi.

Member Hamaguchi:
Thank you very much. There may be some parts that overlap with Dr. Miyauchi's opinions, but I hope you will forgive me.

First of all, regarding my first question, the results of the questionnaire showed that another person uses the private key of the representative to sign the electronic signature, but I think the risk is quite large. If it is a hanko, I think it is possible to physically lend the hanko that the representative has to someone and manage it to some extent, but in a digital environment, especially if it is a private key used in a soft token, it can be easily copied, so it is considered that the risk is even greater in a digital environment. This seems to be exactly the same for authentication credentials for remote signing. The risk can be reduced by using a power of attorney, especially the one that Dr. Miyauchi mentioned in the first round, which shows the comprehensive power of attorney and the title.
I also believe that the issue of cost will lead to the next common understanding.
I would like to ask about a common understanding. Electronic signatures based on E-Certificate only confirm people, but electronic power of attorney can confirm both corporations and people. In particular, as digitalization progresses, it is thought that there will be many cases where contract acts will proceed without face-to-face communication, as I believe is the case now.
Under these circumstances, I think that electronic contracts using this electronic power of attorney can be expected to be effective.
On the other hand, in terms of how to create a common understanding, I believe that electronic contracts are particularly beneficial to the relying party, the validation side. For example, we need to create an electronic contract guide for government agency, introduce electronic power of attorney in it, and disclose the electronic contract guide to financial institutions, real estate companies, and large companies that are engaged in particularly high-risk transactions. In this way, we need to create a common understanding of electronic contracts for areas where there are particularly high-risk transactions.
That's all.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Then, Mr. Ikada I, Commissioner (Observer), I would like to ask you a favor.

Ikatai Observer:
Today, I am participating for the first time as an observer. I am Ikada I, chairman of the Expert Committee on Digital Trust Response of the Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
Our activities include the approval of electronic signatures in audit reports under the revised Certified Public Accountants Act, which came into effect in September 2021. Taking this opportunity, the Institute of Certified Public Accountants has compiled and published a summary of points to consider in order to ensure the authenticity of PDF documents obtained under remote work environments, as well as a study document on the basic knowledge of digital Trust and the use of Trust services such as electronic signatures.
At this review meeting, I would like to make some comments on electronic power of attorney from the perspective of a third party such as an audit.

Regarding the point that is currently under discussion, on page 8, (ii) of the slide, there is a efficiency for auditing. Regarding electronic power of attorney, as far as I understand it, information such as who was delegated, the delegator, the person delegated, when the delegation was made, and which organization it is is digitalization, and I think that is combined with electronic documents. Until now, many corporate transactions have been paper-based, but the advantage of digitalization is that it is possible to analyze a large amount of information on such transactions when it is digitalization. In that sense, from the perspective of auditing, external auditing, and corporate internal auditing, I think that digitalization of such a large amount of data and digitalization of delegated information for delegated matters will lead to efficiency of auditing. Regarding future expansion, a power of attorney is one big digitalization, and I think it will be very important to affix such a seal to the data, and I hope that the power of attorney will spread.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Then, I would like to ask for an answer from the office.

Secretariat Tonami:
I am Tonami from the Secretariat. I have received quite a few opinions from everyone, so I am not sure if I will be able to touch on all of them within this time. First of all, regarding the confirmation of the identity of the attorney, which was received from Commissioner Itakura, I have received opinions from many local government in particular, so I would like to confirm with other departments in the Agency and consider what can be done in the electronic power of attorney initiative.

In addition, Mr. Itakura expressed his opinion that it would have been convenient if it could have been used where. I hope that we can continue to identify places where there is actual demand, such as where it could be used to expand.

In addition, with regard to the limited number of B-to-G applications, I believe you mentioned the revision of the Act, but I believe there are many initiatives that can be made without the revision of the Act, so I believe we will first work on that.

Next, with regard to the actual state of the seals received from the Imperial Household Committee and the proxy for the affixing of seals, which is under the jurisdiction of the Trust Group in Digital Agency, Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, I would like to continue our efforts in the future in terms of what kind of electronic signatures can be shown and how we should think about them among the various forms of electronic signatures.

Next, I believe that the difference from physically managed seals that Mr. Hamaguchi mentioned is true, and in the future, for example, electronic signatures that are strictly managed using passwords and electronic signatures that are managed using PINs or passwords will need to be properly managed. For example, even for seals, such rules have been established, internal rules have been established, and power of attorney has been used, so I believe it is necessary to make efforts to encourage people to properly manage such matters.

In addition, I believe it was Mr. Miyauchi, but I think it would be better for the Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists Association to talk about the clarification of the handling of the official seal of the Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists later. The opinion we have received from local government is that the Enforcement Regulations of the Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists Act require that the official seal be affixed to documents prepared by the Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists Act, and there is a E-Certificate for Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists, but it is not clear whether it is essential for digital applications. We will do so for the official seal.

I am not sure if we have received all of your opinions, but that is all for the secretariat.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Earlier, there was a question from the Secretariat about whether we have picked up all of them, so if there are any members who would like to confirm here now, I would like to ask you to speak. Is that okay? If there is nothing in particular, I would like to conclude my remarks on Agenda 1.

Next, regarding agenda 2, please provide an explanation from the Secretariat.

Secretariat Tonami:
Please wait a moment while I share the screen. Now, I will explain Agenda 2 in accordance with Materials 2 and Reference 1.
First, please look at Handout 2.

This slide summarizes the content related to electronic power of attorney and remote signature.
Regarding the combination of electronic power of attorney and remote signature, the Attribute Authentication Study Sub-Working Group, which conducted a study on electronic power of attorney, also conducted a study on the relationship between remote signature and electronic power of attorney, such as that remote signature is an important requirement for realizing an electronic power of attorney handling business and that remote signature and electronic power of attorney have high affinity.
However, there is currently no certified electronic power of attorney handling business operator that issues an electronic power of attorney using remote signing. One of the reasons for this is that there is no standard for key storage in the case of remote signing in the certification standards for certified business operators by the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, which accounts for many of the electronic power of attorney handling business operators, and in particular, there was a high hurdle in the case where the certification authority and the remote electronic signature service operator are the same.
Currently, Digital Agency and the Ministry of Justice are conducting technical and institutional studies to develop certification standards for remote signatures with the aim of revising the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act in the first half of fiscal 2024. In the future, it is expected that some businesses will be able to obtain certification for electronic power of attorney through remote signatures and become a business operator handling electronic power of attorney.
Under such circumstances, I would like you to make your comments based on such premise when we discuss the future use of the SDF.
With this slide, we would like to provide basic information on such a remote signature and electronic power of attorney combination.

This is a brief explanation about remote signing.
Remote signatures are not in the conventional form of an IC card or a file in which a E-Certificate is stored. Instead, the key is stored in a secure device called the HSM of the remote signature service provider, which is tamper-resistant, and the electronic signature is performed in it. The user sends the hash value, etc. of the content to be digitally signed to the remote signature service provider, and the user signs the content and returns the result to the remote signature service provider. In order to have the remote signature service provider digitally sign the content with the key, the user is authenticated by the credential issuer and IdP, and can use the key.

In addition, as a reference, I have attached slides for the flow of issuance of electronic power of attorney in the E-Certificate method, the IC card method, and the remote signature method, so please check them if you like.

This is about the relationship between remote signatures and electronic power of attorney. In the case of an electronic power of attorney in the E-Certificate method, particularly an electronic power of attorney in the form of an IC card, and in the case of a E-Certificate of such hardware, if there is a change in the authority of representation on which the electronic power of attorney is written, there will be a labor and financial burden of reissuing, mailing, and receiving the IC card itself.
The use of remote signatures for electronic power of attorney in the E-Certificate method reduces these efforts and costs, and improves the convenience of electronic power of attorney, which is often caused by changes in affiliation, authority, or department.
In addition, by using a non-face-to-face method such as My Number Card as a means of identity verification at the time of application for use and authentication for key approval of remote signatures, secure electronic signatures can be implemented from application to use without any work such as mailing or receipt.
First of all, that's all for the remote signature.

Next, I would like to introduce the slides on Reference Material 1, the spread of electronic contracts, etc. This slide has reference materials, background and purpose.
At the first Review Meeting, there was an opinion on the spread of electronic contracts, which is a prerequisite for the use of B-to-B and the use of electronic power of attorney. In order to discuss this point, data on the spread of electronic contracts in companies and the practice of contracts, in particular, data on the part where authority of representation and electronic power of attorney are used, is necessary. Therefore, we would like to provide data useful for the discussion of this Review Meeting and lead to the discussion on the area where the use of electronic power of attorney is expected and should be spread.
This material is useful for the discussion of this Study Group and is a material that summarizes and provides the information found in general papers. The results of the survey presented in this material are not the views of Digital Agency. We would appreciate it if you could confirm it with that point in mind.

There is a survey called Questionnaire Survey on Commercial Registration and Contract Conclusion Practices of Companies. This is a survey conducted by the Study Group on General Provisions of the Commercial Code and Commercial Transactions on member companies of the Association of Friends of Economic Law. This survey was conducted in February 2022, after the spread of electronic contracts was spread a little after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are two main questions: one is to ask about commercial registration and the use of certificates, etc. related to it, assuming the situation of acquiring business partners information, and the other is to ask about the contract conclusion process inside the target company, assuming the situation of being a party to the contract. Thank you very much for the survey results provided by Professor Funatsu of the Study Group. We believe that the questions in this survey are very useful for this study based on the actual situation of the contract conclusion process in companies.

One point that we would like you to keep in mind is that the target and population of this survey are mostly listed companies, so the actual situation of unlisted companies and SMEs may not be reflected in this survey.
In addition, only some items of this survey are shown on this slide.

It is difficult to touch on all of these questions due to time constraints, so I would like to touch on only some important points.

First, regarding the question on whether there are any internal rules to confirm the authority to conclude a contract and the presence or absence of the authority of representation when a person other than the representative appears as the direct contract holder in the counterparty to the contract in Q5, I believe that this is a question related to the very situation where an electronic power of attorney is used. Regarding this question, 5.9% of business operators have a rule to make such confirmation as an explicit internal rule, 16.5% of business operators make such confirmation as an internal practice, and about 20% of business operators make confirmation, so I believe that proper confirmation is made in a small number of companies, but cannot be ignored.
In addition, even for companies that do not have any particular rules, I believe that it is expected that the authority of representation will be properly confirmed as internal rules in the future, as the meaning of using the electronic power of attorney for the audit mentioned earlier and the meaning of using the electronic power of attorney will be understood and organized.

In addition, regarding Q5-1, I believe that the question is related to the points that the committee members gave their opinions in the first meeting, such as the provision of transactions, the confirmation of such matters at the time of the first conclusion of a transaction or when a transaction is made for a certain amount or more, and the use of an electronic power of attorney. I believe that this will also be of great reference to this Review Committee.

In addition, as a method of confirming the authority of representation, there was a business operator who confirmed the authority of representation by presenting a written power of attorney with a registered seal or other power of attorney, or an internal rule that shows the location of the right to conclude a contract.
In addition, there were some business operators who concluded contracts with comprehensive authority, such as the confirmation of business card information and titles, and there were also business operators who specified such authority in their contracts.
In addition, in Q15, in response to the question of whether there are management regulations for electronic signatures, in Q12, there was a question about management regulations for seal impressions, but compared to that, the number of business operators who said that there are no rules is overwhelmingly large. I believe that electronic signatures and electronic contracts, which have a short history as stated in the previous opinion, have not yet become widespread and have not yet become a common practice.

In addition, in Q16, there was a question asking whether you use an electronic power of attorney based on the Electronic Power of Attorney Act. Although the number of users who use it is decreasing, 10% of companies are considering using it in the future.
In the additional question on the use of electronic power of attorney, the business operators who are currently using electronic power of attorney answered that they are using it for e-Tax, eLTAX, and GEPS for tax payment procedures and government agency bidding, but the business operators who are considering using it in the future are equally considering using it for contract conclusion with private sector and electronic contracts in addition to such procedures. I believe that this will also be a great reference for this review.

Due to time constraints, we believe that the scope of the results of this survey that can be touched on within the Study Group is limited. Therefore, regarding some of the results, the Secretariat will post comments in the form shown here. If you do not mind, we would appreciate it if you could check the slides from page 14.

So, that's all for the presentation on agenda 2. Mr. Uehara, nice to meet you.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. If there are any committee members or observers who have questions or opinions about the current proceedings and the explanation from the Secretariat, please let us know by chat or the show of hands function. What do you think?
Thank you, Mr. Itakura.

Member Itakura:
Briefly, on page 12, 60 companies are using it and are considering using it. As you mentioned, from the perspective of not using it now but using it in the future, I think it was a very interesting insight that everyone is interested in concluding a contract with private sector. I think we need to take measures against it. On the other hand, I think there is room to dig a little deeper into the survey results themselves, and I think that the cases in which use is being considered are not only one use cases but multiple use cases. Looking at the number of valid responses, it seems that only one of tax payment, government agency bidding, and contract conclusion has been selected. I thought it would be good to dig a little deeper into what kind of use cases are expected.
That's all.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Next, Mr. Hamaguchi, nice to meet you.

Member of the Hamaguchi
Thank you very much. First of all, regarding remote signatures and power of attorney, non-remote signatures, I would like to say local signatures. With local signatures, the signer applies for the issuance of the certificate by himself, manages the private key by himself, and bears the amount and cost of the certificate issuance and the management of the private key.
I mentioned earlier that electronic signatures and electronic contracts have advantages especially for validation users and relying parties. I think there is room for a structure in which local signatures impose costs on users rather than beneficiaries. On the other hand, remote signatures have a big advantage in that it is easy to create a structure in which beneficiaries pay for them. Instead of a business per certificate, it will be a subscription business per number of signatures that can be managed on the server side, for example, which will lead to the spread of highly reliable signature services and electronic contract services. I think it is very reassuring that such institutionalization is being considered in Digital Agency.

Regarding the survey on page 6, I did not know at all about the fact that more than 20% of companies confirm the authority of proxy. I think it is a very important research result that there is a survey result that can confirm that there is a need for such a potential electronic proxy.

Q15, I did not see which page it was on, but if there are internal rules in Q15, 38% of them exist as written internal rules, and 36.7% of them do not exist, but even if there are 38% internal rules, it is still questionable whether they are appropriate rules. We must create a common understanding for the B2B spread of electronic signatures and the use of electronic power of attorney, so I believe that it is necessary to create appropriate internal rules and promote a common understanding that will expand in Digital Agency.
That's all.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Then, I would like to ask for your continued support, Mr. Kasai.

Member Kasai:
Thank you very much. I would also like to make a statement on Q15, page 17 of the Reference Materials in the Secretariat Materials.
As I commented at the previous Review Meeting, there are almost no rules for electronic signatures and ordinary seals. However, there are no rules for electronic signatures, but about 40% of them do not exist. First of all, we should take steps to achieve this. If there are no rules for electronic signatures, although they are not subject to this review, we should use electronic signatures to ensure certainty in E-Certificate, and since there are so many representatives, it is difficult to represent them, so we should issue a power of attorney. I think this is the original step, but I think it is very important to understand that there are no rules yet before that step.
At this point in time, the cooperation of business partners is essential for electronic contracts and electronic signatures, and I believe that this is due to the fact that such rules have not been spread or there are no standards. As the committee members mentioned earlier, in the sense that things do not pass through the hands because they are digital, it is important to ensure security and security by being stricter, but I thought that electronic signatures and electronic power of attorney will become popular in the future by showing some rules.
That's all.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Then, I would like to ask for your continued support, Imperial Household Commissioner.

Imperial Household Commissioner:
This is the Imperial Household. First of all, regarding remote signatures in Material 2, I believe that there are various types of remote signatures on page 6, but if I may make a few comments, in fact, when using card-shaped E-Certificate devices for electronic signatures, it is often difficult to install a card reader. Given this, I think it is very good to use remote signatures in some form, and I think it will expand if it becomes easier to use.

There are various levels of methods for key authorization and how to confirm whether or not to actually sign, so I think it is necessary to consider the level of security depending on the use to some extent. So, in fact, most of the management of cards and their keys is done in-house. Of course, there is a part from the certified business operator, and it is necessary to do that, but if there is some mismanagement in the company, it is actually the company's responsibility, so I think it is okay to think about what the company can do within its reasonable scope.

As for the reference materials, first of all, there is confirmation of commercial registration on page 5, but I do it quite a lot, to be honest. Aside from companies I have known for a long time, if I have a business relationship with a new company in some form, I look at the commercial registration information on the Internet and actually enforce it. However, it costs about 330 yen per case, so I would like it to be cheaper. It is getting cheaper by several yen every year, so it is getting cheaper gradually, but I hope it will be much cheaper, which is unrelated to this conference, but I think.

Also, on page 17, the Management Regulations for Electronic Signatures and the Seal Management Regulations are written, but I think they are very important. By the way, I have published templates in magazines and my books, but to be honest, I think the current situation is that they are not very popular. If we make them into a form that can be used by everyone in a normal way, I think electronic contracts and electronic signatures will become popular. I also think that electronic power of attorney will be greatly affected. So, considering the public relations around here and the establishment of guidelines, I think it will be quite advanced.
That's all from me.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Next, Mr. Yamaguchi, nice to meet you.

Commissioner Yamaguchi:
Thank you very much. I am Yamaguchi from the University of Tokyo. The point I wanted to make the most is actually what Dr. Miyauchi said, but what I think in general this time is that rather than trying to apply this to everything, I have an opinion that it is better to first adapt to a situation in which the frequency of use is relatively high, and for example, even if a card reader is troublesome for a professional like Shigyo, it is possible to cope with it.
Rather than buying a card reader to do something that I do only once in my life and doing it with all the conditions prepared, I wanted to be able to pick up things that would be easy to do electronically because it is very troublesome to do it several times a year. In particular, I thought that it would be more popular to find a service or application that is suitable for the professionals who are visiting us today, and to summarize the story centered on that, although I would not say it fits there.
That's all I wanted to say.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. Then, Mr. Ikada, the observer, nice to meet you.

Ikatai Observer:
I would like to comment on three points. The first is Q5, the second is Q15, and the third is Q16.
First of all, with regard to Q5, the results of the questionnaire on the existence of internal rules, I think that whether there is a Legal Department or a department similar to the Legal Department also has a great influence. In other words, for companies that have internal controls in which departments other than the contracting party departments are involved for checking, I think that there are cases where it exists as an internal rule or a practice if not a rule. Therefore, rather than looking at the existence of internal rules, I think that what kind of internal control the company has has a great influence. However, with regard to transactions, I think that how important the transaction itself is to the company and how much internal control is necessary for the company also have an influence, rather than whether rules are necessarily necessary, and I think that such viewpoints need to be included in the goal.

Next, regarding Q15, I believe that the rules for the management of electronic signatures are almost like a chicken and egg. In other words, companies that have never received a document signed with an electronic signature or companies that have never done it themselves naturally do not have such rules, but when they are forced to check electronic signatures, I think that as a result, internal rules and practices such as what kind of check should be made will be created. In other words, rules are always created later, and rules can only be created when actual conditions and practices change, so even for companies that do not have such rules, I think that rules will be created when such electronic signatures spread in the future. However, regarding the timing issue, I think that how to reduce the time lag is important from the perspective of corporate internal control and compliance, so when the use of electronic signatures in the company increases in practice, if there is a model that can be used as a reference to refer to what kind of rules are necessary, it can be referred to and reflected in the internal rules, so the time lag will be reduced, and the risk for the company will be reduced accordingly. Therefore, I think that it is significant to present some rules like a model case in advance if we expect that electronic power of attorney will also spread in the future.

Finally, regarding the use of electronic power of attorney in Q16, in my view, when considering the use of power of attorney in B-to-B transactions, in the first place, in the case of a contract that allows the use of power of attorney, a relationship of trust has already been established between business operators, or if it is clear that the other party in the business partners already has high social trust, a contract is usually made by power of attorney. Therefore, I believe that the aspect of the use of electronic power of attorney will vary depending on the situation and the counterparty. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to consider the perspective of what kind of transaction is used in B-to-B transactions. In Q16-11, there are tax payments and government agency, but in the case of a contract with a counterparty in C private sector, I think that depending on the situation, the case where it is necessary and the case where it is not necessary are different.
That's all.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. If there are no other comments, I would like to ask the secretariat to summarize the above and reply to me.

Secretariat Tonami:
Thank you all for your input. First of all, I would like to touch the remote signature part.

As Mr. Hamaguchi mentioned, remote signatures are beneficial to the validation operator in terms of verifying the authority of representation, but until now it has been a burden on the IC card issuer. However, regarding remote signatures, I don't think there have been many discussions about the possibility of a new form of fee, such as charging by the remote signature service provider, the certificate authority, and the RSSP, or subscription. In the future, I would like to talk about the future use of remote signatures with business associations and other organizations.

In addition, Dr. Miyauchi also expressed his opinion on the need to provide a card reader in addition to the hassle and financial burden of the IC card. I did not mention that on this slide, but I think it is a very important point. For example, it is naturally possible to do something from the smartphone other than a computer, but in the case of the IC card type, it is difficult to perform electronic signatures at such a place, so I would like to think about various new ways to log in and perform electronic signatures of the person himself in order to spread the use of the IC card type in the future. I think that is all for remote signatures.

Next, I would like to talk about the other reference material. I received many opinions on this, too, so I wonder where I will start. First, I believe that I received opinions from several people on the seal management regulations in Q12. Regarding this point, for example, in Mr. Ikada's opinion at the end, there are fewer regulations for the management of electronic signatures than the seal management regulations, and I believe that there are opinions on whether internal controls and such are being properly implemented, whether internal controls are being properly implemented as a whole, and that the management of electronic signatures is a relationship between chickens and eggs. In particular, regarding electronic signatures, there are no precedents until now, and I believe that there is a lack of recognition in the world that it is wrong to do this. In addition, as I mentioned in the previous review meeting, it is a little difficult for the government to show the rules, but I would like to gather organizations of business operators to discuss something and think about what kind of form we can show.

As for other opinions, in Q16, as Mr. Ikada's last opinion, regarding the use of delegation, whether or not the delegation has been confirmed, I believe that there was an opinion on what kind of confirmation should be made depending on the counterparty. As shown in Q5-1, I believe that it would be good to consider various forms of confirmation, such as confirmation at the time of the first contract, confirmation if the amount is over a certain amount, or confirmation if the contract is particularly important, in the same way as Mr. Kasai's opinion last time.

I believe there was an opinion from Commissioner Yamaguchi that the discussion should be centered on applications that are frequently used and that have demand, rather than on what should be spread and what should be spread. I believe that is true. As I explained earlier, at this review meeting, if there is demand for applications that can be used under a private-public contract, we will spread them there. In addition, if there is a certain demand for administrative procedures, we will spread them if there are people who want to be sorted out. For example, regarding picking up demand, I would like to continue to pick up demand from the results of this survey and the people who are actually conducting the procedures for the observers who are participating this time.

I'm not sure if I've picked up all of them, but that's all from me. If anyone else has anything to say, thank you. I'll return it to Mr. Uehara.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. If there are any other observers who would like to share their opinions, I would appreciate it if you could share them with us. Are there any?

In any case, I would like to repeat what I said last time, but I believe that the most important thing in order to spread the use of electronic power of attorney, which does not have a real sense of touch, is to show it to people, even if it is limited in use cases, that they can use it in this way if they do not have a real sense of touch or experience. As you pointed out earlier, based on the results of the questionnaire, I felt that it is important to let people imagine what they cannot imagine in order to create incentives to use it. Although there may be future discussions, I thought while watching this that we would be able to issue guidelines in that direction, or if there are legal obstacles, we would continue to remove them as soon as possible.

If there are no particular remarks, I would like to conclude the second session of Agenda 2 here. Is that okay? Thank you.

Secretariat Tonami:
We still have a little time, so I would appreciate it if you could comment on your opinion, for example, your opinion that you would like us to clarify the handling of your official seal, regardless of Agenda 1 and 2. This is outside the scope of the agenda, but could you please?

Chairman:
Nice to meet you, Mr. Nikko Ren.

Sekiya Observer:
My name is Sekiya, and I am the Executive Director of the Digital Promotion Headquarters of the Japan Federation of Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists Associations. This is my first time participating in this event. Nice to meet you.
I really appreciate your participation in the valuable discussion this time.
As you mentioned, I would like to briefly introduce our business flow rather than how we are thinking about the electronic power of attorney, and use it for future discussions, especially in use cases.
You don't seem to have time, so I would like you to listen to me while I'm at it.

We conduct our business in accordance with the Administrative Scriveners Act. Basically, we prepare documents at the request of others and work for a fee. This is considered to be a specialized service. We are not the only ones who can bring the documents to the administrative agency, for example. In any case, our business is premised on receiving requests from others. In that sense, a letter of attorney is an essential service.

I myself make about 2,000 documents a year, and when I think about the fact that I do all my work with the help of other people, I think it would be very helpful if I could process the documents electronically rather than writing them on paper, in the sense that I would need a letter of attorney for the number of documents I submit.

By the way, in terms of the type of customer, for example, in terms of B-to-B and business-to-consumer, I think B-to-G is the most common document we create, but there are C-to-G, and depending on the situation, there are B-to-B and consumer to consumer. There is business-to-consumer, and there are C-to-B, although the number is small. There are about 10,000 procedures to cover, so it would be very helpful if there was a system that could comprehensively process the delegation relationship for these 10,000 procedures.
However, the format of the power of attorney is not particularly determined, and depending on the situation and the content of the mandate, there will be a certain amount of appearance. As long as the identification of the person is properly regulated in a flexible format, it is the same for electronic power of attorney and paper power of attorney, but in the sense that a third party is involved in transactions or procedures, the transactions can be activated, or the benefits of the planned policies and interests can be widely spread and conveyed to the people, there is also the significance of proxy, and it is my understanding that the fact that there is the significance of proxy means that the number of situations in which the power of attorney will be active will increase rapidly.

In this process, the digitalization of procedures and the digitalization of transactions and contracts are advancing, so it is desirable that the delegation relationship is processed in the system, transaction process, and application procedure process. For example, our sense is that among the hundreds of thousands of documents exchanged annually, there are documents related to permission submitted by construction companies to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism or prefectural governments. The online application process started in January this year.
In the past, applications were made on paper, but now they are made online using gBizID. In this system, administrative scriveners are applicants and companies. As agents of companies, they can enter the system. Originally, they can create a delegation relationship because they use gBiz, but in the construction business license system, the delegation relationship created in gBiz is not reflected as it is, and they are required to create a new delegation relationship in the construction business and JCIP system.

It is not in the form of a power of attorney. You enter the necessary information on the screen one after another, and at the end, check whether you are a certified administrative procedures legal specialist or not. If you check the box saying you are a certified administrative procedures legal specialist, you need to prove that you are a certified administrative procedures legal specialist. There is a card-type certificate, but if you scan the certificate in PDF, attach it, and send it to the system, the administrative agency responsible for the disposition will make a visual inspection to confirm it, and the procedure will proceed further and further. In the online application system, which handles hundreds of thousands of cases, it is the act of making a prima facie showing of the relationship of mandate, but we are broadly thinking that this can be done a little more digitally. In fact, there are quite a few procedures like this. There is also a prima facie showing as an agent using a My Number Card, and there are various ways to confirm the identity of the person who has delegated to us. There are various ways to confirm the identity of the person and to prove that the person has truly established the relationship of mandate. Of course, it would be fine if there were a variety of delegation relationships in a form that fits the procedure, but I think it would be very good if there was a unified format for preparing thousands of documents a year and submitting them as an agent or representative.

With regard to the employment seal, there is a call for the abolition of the seal, or a seal is not required for online or digital applications. It is treated as a separate identification, but we have Article 9, Paragraph 2 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialist Act, which says that the documents we are involved in should have a seal. If it is a paper application, we will follow it, but there was actually a discussion that even the paper application does not need the seal. However, the Ordinance for Enforcement has not disappeared, and we have no choice but to do it because it is an indispensable regulation. I wonder what to do in the case of digital and online applications. However, in terms of the system, we have a G-ID, which is certified by SECOM Trust, and we may attach it, but for example, some applications related to construction licenses are handled by gBiz without using this, so it is appreciated that this can be handled in a unified manner as a business. I actually feel that it is quite different in each case that this method is used in which procedure, and that it is good to do this, or that it is good to do this as it is, so I felt that if I could convey this to you through meetings like this, it could contribute to the spread of some kind of electronic power of attorney.
That's all.

Chairman:
Thank you very much. I heard the situation of the site very vividly, so I hope that I can connect this to the discussion well. It is time, so I would like to return it to the secretariat. Thank you very much.

Secretariat Tonami:
I would like to conclude this meeting by referring to the comments of the Certified Administrative Procedures Legal Specialists Association at the end.

There are various procedural patterns, and there are various ways to confirm the relationship of delegation. Until now, applications by proxy and discussions on delegation have been conducted separately, and I believe that various discussions have been advanced as they were in the past. In that regard, there are various parts that can be done only in Digital Agency, so in the future, I believe that it would be good to unify various procedures and systems, such as making a proper distinction between electronic signatures and electronic authentication, so that they will be convenient. I would like to hear your opinions in future discussions.

We will reflect your opinions in the agenda from next time.
The minutes of today's meeting will be published on the Digital Agency website at a later date after confirmation by the committee members.
In addition, I will contact you again about the next review meeting. We would like to ask for your continued support.
With that, we conclude the second meeting of the Electronic Power of Attorney Law Enforcement Status Review Meeting. Thank you very much, everyone.

End