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 ".

The first meeting of the Study Group on the Framework for Certification in the Field of Education

Last Updated:

Overview

  • Date and time: March 13, 2025 (Thursday) from 10:00 to 12:00
  • Location: online meetings
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Business
      1. Holding a Study Group on the Ideal of Certification Infrastructure in the Educational Field
      2. The Present Situation and Problems of digitalisation at the Primary and Secondary Levels
      3. Considerations on Certification Infrastructure in the Educational Field
      4. Main Discussions at the 6th Data Utilization System Review Meeting
      5. Results of Hearings with Relevant Parties
      6. Exchange of views
    3. Closing

Material

References

Minutes

Deputy Director HIRATA:
Now that we are on time, let's get started. Thank you very much for attending today despite your busy schedule. My name is Hirata from Group of Service for Citizens, Digital Agency. I will be the moderator for the opening session. I look forward to working with you. Prior to the meeting, Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning would like to explain the purpose of the meeting and introduce the committee members.

Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning:
My name is Hisayoshi, and I am Director for Policy Planning from Group of Service for Citizens, Digital Agency. Thank you in advance. Now, I would like to explain the purpose of the review meeting. This is Handout 1. As I explained to the teachers in advance, the GIGA School Concept has made great progress in digitalisation in the field of education in Japan. On the other hand, if we assume that various data will be linked in the future, such as the transfer of data at the time of transferring or advancing to a higher school, we recognize that it is necessary to develop an authentication infrastructure to ensure the authenticity of the main body and data. As the certification infrastructure is included in Digital Public Infrastructure, the Cabinet decision confirms that the Government needs to actively develop it. For this reason, the purpose of this study meeting is to narrow down the direction of future research and study by receiving advice from the committee members on the required functions, desirable implementation methods, and points to note that should be carefully examined before implementing the certification infrastructure in the education field. Next, I would like to confirm the implementation method. This review panel is composed of the members that I will explain later. The chair will be appointed by the Secretariat. In addition, the cooperation of persons other than those listed in the Appendix will be requested as necessary, and the minutes of the meeting will be promptly prepared and published on the Digital Agency website after the meeting. Next, I would like to talk about Handout 2. I will read out the list of members. First, Mr. Ikeda from Toda City. Next, Mr. Ishii from Chuo University. Mr. Ishizaka from ICT CONNECT21. Mr. Izumi from the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. Mr. Itakura from Hikari Sogo Law Office. Mr. Kozaki from Nara University of Education. Mr. Nakabayashi from Chitose University of Science and Technology. Eiji Fuji from OpenID Foundation Japan. Mr. Fujimura from Naruto University of Education is participating in this event. Also, as you have agreed in advance, we would like to ask Mr. Fujimura to be the chairman and Mr. Kozaki to be the acting chairman. That's all the explanation from the secretariat.

Deputy Director HIRATA:
Then, regarding the proceedings from here, I would like to ask Mr. Fujimura, the chairperson who has just been appointed, to lead the meeting.

Chairman Fujimura:
I am Fujimura from the Graduate School of Naruto University of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and have been appointed as the chairperson. Thank you for your kind attention. I would like to say a few words. As you mentioned in your explanation of the purpose, the educational field has greatly advanced in information technology due to GIGA School Concept and other factors. Amidst this, I myself made a presentation on the Education Cloud at an international conference in London in 2010. In the discussion on what is needed in each part of IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS, I thought it would be necessary to ensure a common certification infrastructure and authenticity in the PaaS part. It has been 15 years since 2010, but I believe that we have finally reached that point. As a committee member, we have invited people with excellent knowledge from various fields to participate. As you mentioned earlier, I would like to receive your frank opinions on the future of the certification infrastructure and achieve better results, so I would appreciate your cooperation. Now, let's get down to business. First, from the secretariat, please explain the current situation and issues in digitalisation at the primary and secondary levels, which will be the premise of this review meeting, and the matters to be considered regarding the certification infrastructure in the educational field.

Murakami Director-General:
This is Mr. Murakami from Director-General, Digital Agency. In response to the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on the Use and Application of Education Data in Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, I believe that this review of the certification infrastructure is a mission to provide a solid answer to Digital Agency, while utilizing Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's technical expertise in particular. Therefore, I hope that the process of this meeting itself can be discussed in such a way that it can be widely referred to by various parties involved in the certification infrastructure in the future, and the secretariat will make efforts to create easy-to-understand materials and explanations. I would like to start explaining about Material 3 right away. GIGA School Concept. In any case, if terminals do not reach every corner, there will be no use or anything. In the first place, if you go back a few years, there were no terminals for one person or high-speed, large-capacity communication networks. However, in the second round of the GIGA School Concept, it has finally become a reality that each person has a terminal. That is why I think this discussion is starting now. Today, with the support of the Digital Administrative and Fiscal Reform Council and the great efforts of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, we have made considerable progress in the implementation of DXs for school affairs using dashboards, including the easy-to-understand elimination of fax. What I would like to discuss in this Study Group is not only the digitalisation of the teachers' rooms in each school, but also the teachers' rooms and the Board of Education across the teachers' rooms. In the future, at the levels of teachers' rooms, schools, educational institutions, and non-educational institutions, we are at the stage of considering how to build the infrastructure for DX and the next generation of school affairs DX in that phase. This is an emerging issue. I would appreciate it if you would read the materials regarding the details of your overtime work. For example, if various applications come in separately, it will take a considerable amount of time for the teachers just to set up the applications, and they will be able to use each application from June. There is another one. I think each school or local government thinks it's a good idea, but each school or local government has its own OS or platform, and from a nationwide point of view, it's like a rain in the spring. Furthermore, if we go back to the board of education level of each basic local government, although I have written in the material that it is a one person information system issue, to be honest, it is not realistic to ask those who are in charge of procurement at each board of education of more than 1700 basic local governments to seek knowledge at the national level and to conduct procurement rationally. Without fairly common guidelines and assistance, various platforms will come in, and I am aware that whether it is possible to send and receive children's data securely between platforms is already a real problem. As a matter of fact, there have already been 231 cases of personal information leaks involving 140,000 people in fiscal 2023. Of these, 50 cases involved academic performance information. About 20% of the cases involved online connections and transmissions, and about half the number of people were affected. In the case of data linkage on a network, which is a major objective of this study group, if there is no authentication infrastructure in the sense that "you are really the person" can be confirmed to the other party between different platforms, secure data linkage cannot be achieved in the first place. If this is done, the number of accidents similar to the personal information leakage accident will increase if it is left as it is in the future. This is the situation. If we continue to worry about the current situation, there will be no end to it, but we cannot do so. So, let me return to the base frame here. So far, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has taken the lead in promoting digitalisation in the educational field, but roughly speaking, the discussion has been based on two ecosystems, one for school affairs and the other for learning. In particular, I am well aware that there have been various discussions on the APPLIC standard, the OneRoster that connects between school affairs and academic affairs, the e-portal for learning in academic affairs, and others. However, the development of LTI and xAPI has progressed. In fact, the discussion on what the sender and receiver of standardized data should have has been left behind. In the first place, there have been no terminals in use so far, so it would be useless to discuss them. Therefore, the discussion on the standard for sending and receiving data has progressed to a certain degree. As a standard, we have continued to make efforts to spread it in Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. I believe that the Board of Education is also making progress in responding to it. It seems to be a long time coming, but there is no talk about the authentication at each of the sending and receiving terminals yet. I believe that the main purpose of the Study Group is how to do that. For your information, the U.N. is currently discussing digital public goods with Digital Public Infrastructure. It is necessary for Digital Public Infrastructure to discuss a common base across prefectures, and this is clearly stated in "Basic Policy on the Development and Operation of Common Digital Platforms for the Government and Local Governments." This trend is not limited to education. Now, in terms of the standardization of local systems, we are talking about the standardization of systems for 20 operations. As I often say, if I compare local autonomy to apparel, it does not mean that the government wants to say anything about whether it makes Wafuku or Western clothes, but as a result of the decentralization of procurement authority in making Wafuku and Western clothes, Wafuku tailoring scissors, tailoring scissors for Western clothes, and even tools called Wafuku tailoring scissors of XX prefecture style are being made. Because of this, when we try to talk to each other, we find ourselves in a situation where the tools are different in the first place. In addition, as a result of each making its own products, procurement costs are also high. Therefore, it is a separate discussion to show originality and ingenuity in the content, and to say that it is okay to use a pair of scissors separately. Even if the common tools and infrastructure are unified nationwide, it does not go against local autonomy in any way. Rather, it is positive in terms of improving efficiency and ensuring a secure environment for data linkage beyond departments, not only in the field of education, but also in the whole of the country. I believe that Digital Public Infrastructure will have the same discussion in the educational field. If we look at the three steps, the first step says "within the organization," but to put it simply, if we look at the inside of the school, or the board of education of the basic local government and each school, now we have digital drills and separate logins for each digital teaching material. In the worst case, because of that, we've been hearing that, "Sensei, perhaps you can finish all the settings and start using it from June," so I think we need to do something about that first. Or, the homeroom teacher system was promoted. When junior high school teachers come to teach science in the upper grades of elementary school, in the staff room, the teachers who are involved in each application learn everything and do it individually, or the homeroom teacher of each class instructs and teaches it to the teacher who is involved, how many hours of overtime should I work? I think this is what we'll be talking about. It will be necessary to make it common. The next step is what will happen if I transfer schools across municipalities. What will happen when I go to college? How do we deliver the survey? For example, we are preparing for the demonstration of digitalisation's high school entrance examination practice, but when we looked into it, someone somewhere printed out the contents of the survey several times and re-entered them. This is the reality.
However, the investigation report is the most sensitive personal data, so in other words, regarding who is in charge of the document and who can see it, regardless of whether the servers are different or the environments are different between elementary school, junior high school and high school, unless we can confirm that the person who should see it is watching it, in other words, we cannot make a digitalisation with peace of mind. No matter what era it was, when I transferred schools across prefectures, I went to the principal, got the documents, got the official seal, and mailed an envelope with the documents in it, or I went to the new school with the documents in it and opened the envelope, and someone was plopping the contents of the documents into the school affairs support system of the school, and I felt pressure to check if there were any input mistakes, and I decided to stop doing that. Considering this, it is likely that this will not only be unified within a single municipality, but also across prefectures, and unless the certification infrastructure is unified, the envelope administration with the official seal will not be cured. The last step is for the future. So far, I don't have half the ambition to solve the problem right now, but I have half the intention to do what I can now for the future. For example, there are discussions in the relatively near future about whether or not to share data on specific medical examinations held at schools with medical institutions, and I myself have been involved in the Noto Peninsula region to help out there, but the information that local children's schools should have, whether they want to transfer to another school or they don't want to transfer but they want to move to another school and reopen the school, all that data has already been lost, and I have had quite a lot of difficulties. For example, even if you want to transfer to another school and want to go through the transfer procedure, the school itself has not been restored, so all you have to do is ask, "Where on earth can I go to do the transfer procedure?" It's a big fuss. Considering such things, in the future, secure data communication with organizations other than education-related organizations should be considered as a familiar issue. I will organize it later in the next material, but there are two main types of data linkage: organization-based data linkage and individual-based data linkage. To put it very simply, there are documents that the principal of the school puts his official seal on and exchanges with the responsibility of the school, and for example, personal grades and health data are sent based on the consent of the individual. I think that those belonging to school affairs are relatively organization-oriented and those related to academic affairs are relatively individual-oriented, but as I will explain in the next material, it is not possible to completely separate them, so I think it is necessary to consider both of them. The report compiled by the Study Group by April and May will be fed back to the Roadmap for Effective Utilization of Educational Information, and a final agreement will be reached with Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology before a Cabinet decision is made.
Next, I would like to move on to the explanation of Handout 4. On the first page, as I mentioned earlier, there are organization-based data-linkage and individual-based data-linkage, but I think organization-based data-linkage is mostly based on laws and ordinances. However, I don't think all of them are based on laws and ordinances, but in reality, some of them are exchanged between schools. The most typical one, which will be sorted out later, is the instruction record, which is legally required to be shared, and even if it is not written as legally, it is shared between organizations. However, even in this organization to organization, there are cases where the other party sends a graduation certificate or a transcript to an organization in another field, for example, to those who graduate from high school and go on to higher education or get a job. There are cases where individual learners want to send the data they received from schools to their destinations or overseas educational institutions, or they want to send such data because they are required to find a job. Roughly speaking, there is a cross-and-parallel data flow among these four entities, and I think it is a combination like this. If we look at the organizational starting point a little more, as I mentioned earlier, if it is between educational institutions at the time of transfer, there are guidance records, enforcement regulations of the School Education Act, medical examination cards, and regulations under the School Health and Safety Act, as well as a survey at the time of entrance examination and enforcement regulations under the School Education Act. These are positioned in laws and ordinances. On the other hand, there is no position in laws and ordinances, but if we say that it is frequently used, there is no basis in laws and ordinances for the enrollment certificate and the enrollment status of the Disaster Mutual Aid Benefit Program, but it is actually widely used. If you look at something a little more personal. As for the study certificates such as graduation certificates and academic transcripts, there are usage situations such as employment, entrance exams, study abroad, and so on. And speaking of something relatively familiar, I remember that I also went to the school office and got a student commuter certificate and lined up at the station commuter pass counter, but I think that all such things can be done online in the future. In fact, in Digital Agency, in cooperation with JR West, we have started a demonstration of digitalisation as a proof of student status. In any case, I think it would be really interesting to have a regional division in a local shopping street at a local university or a local higher education institution, but that is not part of the education story, so please put it aside. Currently, in many cases, it is not provided outside the organization, but in terms of data accumulated within the organization, there is school medical examination information, learning history, etc. If there is a solid certification foundation, I think it is OK to show these to reliable parties based on the will of the person. I think it is because schools are closed due to the lack of necessary functions and tools, or supplementary systems may need to be developed depending on the situation, but there is a huge amount of data like this. This is not the main point of contention in this review meeting, but in fact, this is a very important issue when we consider that the age of AI will come. There will be a time when overseas data dealers will come to buy data that Japanese don't use, and they will use it overseas, saying that Japanese data is good because it has all the quality. It has already happened that overseas business operators are proposing to use Japanese data by offering good conditions. After all, Japan has to think to what extent, including the perspective of that phase. In addition, as you can see in the handout, the current on-site burden. It's really hard to receive this by mail, and I'm not sure if I received it properly. Also, the fact that parents lose it in the middle of moving, I'm probably one of those two out of 100 people, but if 100 people move, it's possible for two or three people to lose it. From an individual point of view, things like changing jobs, studying abroad, learning certificates, and so on. By the way, I'm sorry for a personal matter, but my son is taking an entrance examination, and I have to let him input the photo data online and not let him paste the photo. This seems to be the most effective way to prevent identity theft. They don't allow photos to be attached to the data registered online. When they are strictly present at the site, they check the photo and the person in question very carefully. Moreover, they use it as it is for the student ID photo. I think this is clearly anti-spoofing, but I think this is a good example of digital even in a place where it is quite useful. In short, it is meaningless if the analog part remains somewhere unless it is completed digitally, so it is not necessary to identify yourself, but there is everything from educational data to Various Certificates, in short, there is a place where this certification infrastructure can be properly delivered, so you can digitalisation with peace of mind. We are in the process of implementation. I wrote the next terminal update. Administrative organizations are single-year institutions, so it is not possible at this point to make an official decision on what they will be doing in 2029. Therefore, I would like to ask for your permission because I am only writing based on assumptions. If the second phase of GIGA follows the same cycle as the first phase of GIGA, I believe that it is the duty of the Government of Japan to provide the same educational environment for children who are transferring from elementary schools in isolated islands suffering from underpopulation to the center of Tokyo and from Tokyo to Fukuoka. If we are to create an environment that can be used up to the edge of isolated islands in 2029, it must have already been introduced in advance on a considerable scale by 2028. In order to do that, there must have been a field demonstration in 2027 that decided to go with this, with quite the same specifications. If you want to do that, you have only 2026 years to do a technical demonstration. We would like to start research and study on it from now on, so we don't have much time. What I want to say is that if we boldly adopt new technologies, we will probably not be able to ride this cycle at all. In terms of the technology that is now dead, as well as its reliability and track record, there is gBizID in terms of organizational certification. On a corporation basis, there are about 2.7 million corporations that are registered and have a record of activities, and about 600,000 of them have already acquired gBizID. At present, there are many cases in which private companies use gBizID for procedures, such as applications for subsidies. However, some educational institutions, such as incorporated educational institutions, also issue gBizID, and Digital Agency is considering a direction in which administrative agencies, such as local governments, will also widely use gBizID. Therefore, I think it is a reasonable choice to use gBizID in the world where the principal's seal is affixed. On the other hand, in terms of personal authentication, I believe that the Public Personal Authentication issued by My Number Card could be used. I would like to add a few words. This is not My Number but My Number Card. What I mean is that My Number Card is a service that can confirm that the person who accessed it is the person himself, no matter what kind of identification he has, whether it is when opening an account at a bank or when issuing an identification at an electronics retail store. It is also used in administrative procedures using My Number. No matter what IDs are used by existing schools, if you work with My Number Card first, you can use My Number Card to confirm that you are who you say you are, even if you have different IDs. For various IDs used in various systems, the Secretariat has proposed that it may be necessary to establish a certification infrastructure in the sense that identity can be confirmed and, as a result, data-linkage can be performed with peace of mind. For personal certification, I believe that Public Personal Authentication in My Number Card is a candidate. In any case, I would like to reiterate that we do not intend to utilize the My Number system itself. In addition, in terms of what to do if you do not have a My Number Card, it is necessary to consider alternative means. On the other hand, those who do not have a My Number Card may be required to communicate on paper instead of digitally, and in such a case, I believe there is an idea of responding with analog. I would also like to hear your opinions on this point in this review meeting. By the way, if it's OK with My Number Card, medical institutions have a good track record of widespread use of scanning devices, so I don't think there is a big technical problem in creating My Number Card scanning environments for schools and making it easier for individuals to use them. On the other hand, from the perspective of Digital Agency's technology, it will be difficult to implement it nationwide in four years unless the technology is in such a state of decay. Finally, I would like to briefly explain the list of matters to be considered and finish my explanation. I will omit the details of the guarantee of authenticity, operation, implementation support for business operators, and future expandability, but in order to ensure authenticity, there is a matter of who is the creator of each data name, organization origin, and individual origin, and who should affix his seal and sign. To a large extent, I would like to replace school principals' seals with digital ones. As a identity verification factor, the authenticity of the document, whether it really exists, and it is written as a demonstration example. This is ID. I would also like to ask about personal identification. The person I'm talking about here is the person who really exists. It's a little bit technical, but in the digital world, when we talk about authentication, it's possible to reliably satisfy two factors, identity verification and personal authentication. Even in international standards, we rate whether this means of authentication is a means of identity verification or a means of personal authentication. In My Number Card, both are at the highest level, level 3. To be honest, the gBizID will go down a little. However, from the perspective of experts, it would not be sufficient if it is conducted between schools, and military information is not sent or received separately, so I think it meets this requirement. There are various signature methods, but I will not explain them. Next is the issue of operation. I think personal information protection will be the main focus, but I think it would be good to deepen the discussion here. In terms of individual-based data linkage, it is basically opt-in, and when detailed consent from the person is usually required, the technology will create a highly flexible system so that the person's consent can be confirmed. Data linkage based on organization-originated laws and ordinances eliminates the need for consent once it is properly determined as a laws and ordinances. In terms of frequent use and operation of the school, it is possible to reduce the burden on the school site by actively linking organization-based data based on the law and laws and ordinances. In fact, there are still some issues that can be sorted out as either individual-oriented data linkage or organization-oriented data linkage. Therefore, I think it would be good to discuss the details of these issues as a viewpoint in this review meeting. In the end, in the next fiscal year's research and study, I think it would be better to sort them out as individual-oriented data linkage, or I think it would be good to organize them as laws and ordinances regulations, and I think there are some aspects that will be decided on a running basis. As for the operation, I will omit the details from the organizational starting point, but I believe that we will conduct a simulation based on the actual operations of each organization, and after determining the direction at this review meeting, we will investigate and verify it in the next fiscal year's project. The same work is required for person-based data linkage. On top of that, as it is still three or four years from now, considering the local governments that will cooperate with the demonstration at every corner of the country or just before that, I think that it is necessary to create manuals and explanatory materials that those who cooperate to some extent can understand if they read them in the research and demonstration projects from the next fiscal year, or I think that it will not be in time for the next GIGA School Concept cycle if we do not proceed at such a timing, so I would be happy if you could give me your suggestion that we should decide the major direction in this review meeting and then confirm the details in the research and demonstration projects. Lastly, I would like to ask about implementation support for business operators. In the end, we need to reach a consensus on decision making with the business operators who are going to conduct the demonstration implementation. Actually, in the field, what kind of connection and business model will be created with the learning e-portal has already become a topic of conversation, and I am aware that it was discussed at the Advisory Council in Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. In addition, since it is just the time to replace it with the next-generation school affairs support system, I think that it is necessary to assist the work of introducing it into the next-generation school affairs support system and how to match it with this work on the field in practical terms. Therefore, I would like to combine the direction shown at this review meeting with the investigation research and demonstration project from next year. In terms of future expandability, I would like to avoid giving a detailed explanation, but based on the wallet function called Verifiable Credentials, it is expected that there will be an increase in the number of people who can use these credentials, and a system in which only the authority is distributed first. Therefore, how much of this should be kept in mind in advance, and when the Secretariat considered it, we considered a DID using blockchain technology rather than gBizID or My Number Card, but the technical maturity was not sufficient, and we could not estimate how much it would cost at this point. So, we could do this in 10 years, but we could not do it in 4 years, so we dropped it from the proposed options in the first place. However, as a technical discussion, if only the ID part is managed on a blockchain, even if the number is issued more and more freely, it is possible to prevent ID conflicts. Therefore, it would be a good idea to ask the Study Group to consider such future technologies at the same time. I explained at once what I would like to discuss in this review meeting in a fairly comprehensive manner. That's all. Thank you.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. Next, Mr. Hisayoshi, please tell us about documents 5 to 7.

Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning:
Next, I am Hisayoshi Hisayoshi from the secretariat. Thank you very much. I would like to explain the process of the review meeting that I discussed with Chairman Fujimura in advance. First of all, today, March 13, Mr. Murakami from Director-General explained the prerequisite information. Based on this, we discussed the use cases. Then, on March 21, based on the discussion, the secretariat proposed the implementation pattern of the certification infrastructure in the form of a Public Personal Authentication by gBizID and My Number Card, and we assume that they will consider whether there are any problems. Based on these, we will consider the considerations I introduced earlier. On April 14, while discussing the considerations, we are considering the flow of considering the summary. In addition, we have set a preliminary date of April 24, so I would appreciate it if you could point out what you noticed. Also, this review meeting alone may not have enough so-called resource persons, so the secretariat is conducting hearings with the relevant parties in advance. We are also checking with local government officials, private school officials, higher education officials, business operators, and nursery school officials. I would like to introduce the contents later.
In relation to this, the Digital Administrative and Fiscal Reform Council has been established within the Government. A working group called the Study Group on Systems and Systems for Data Utilization was established under this framework. On March 4, hearings and exchanges of opinions were held among experts under the theme of "Data Utilization in the Educational Field." Chairman Fujimura and Acting Chairman Kozaki also participated as interviewers. I would like to introduce the outline of the discussion because it overlaps with the contents of this review meeting. First, with regard to the importance of data utilization, we believe that its analysis and utilization can contribute to the improvement of educational standards by providing detailed guidance at educational institutions and improving administrative policies and measures more effectively. In addition, opinions were expressed that the utilization of educational data should basically be promoted in a positive manner, as it could be utilized to enhance learning and respond to student guidance issues, and could also contribute to improving health management and the quality of medical care. In terms of infrastructure and systems, we have been working on the content of data, standardization of standards, and the formulation of standards between systems, but there have been discussions on whether continued efforts are necessary. In particular, there are many issues to be considered for learning-related data. I believe that wide-area data linkage is related to the certification infrastructure, but it is necessary to develop infrastructure and systems as a social infrastructure under the leadership of the government in the future. In order to realize cross-sectoral data linkage in the future, the issue of what to do with IDs for data linkage will also be a challenge. Specifically, at the present stage, it is difficult to carry the learning data of children when they transfer schools, and it is difficult to do so at this stage. There was a discussion earlier about every corner of the country, but there is a possibility that it will be disadvantageous depending on whether it is compatible with the system or not, and it is necessary to consider returning own data to children. Of course, educational data has the nature of personal information that includes sensitive data. Therefore, in addition to taking all possible measures to ensure security, there were discussions on whether it would be necessary to conduct detailed discussions with the relevant parties on access rights and improving data governance. Earlier, Mr. Murakami mentioned an opt-in system, but it would also be necessary to consider a separate opt-out system. There were discussions that if textbook headlines that identify units could be made into open data, it would be expected to promote the use of data for various content. I would like to introduce it as a reference for this review meeting.
As I mentioned earlier, I would like to report the results of the hearings with the relevant parties. It is not included in today's report because it is being implemented recently by people related to private schools and nursery schools. I would like to make an additional report at the beginning next time. First of all, it is difficult for local governments alone to determine the necessity of establishing a national certification infrastructure. And it has naturally become a pressing issue in higher education institutions. The standardization is inhibited, when each organization independently constructs the certification basis. Almost all the people concerned expressed their views that it is necessary for the Government of Japan to properly develop the system, and that it is also necessary to promote cooperation among the people concerned and present a future roadmap. Next, I would like to talk about use cases. With regard to the data and documents that I introduced earlier, most of the local government officials said that they felt they were almost exhaustive. Of course, as we continue to use digital, we will find more use cases, but I got the impression that what can be assumed at this point is almost exhaustive. In terms of the order of priority for implementation, I believe that the highest priority should be given to data linkage starting from the organization, such as guidance records. This is partly due to the positioning of laws and ordinances, and I think we should work on those things first. In addition, with regard to individual-oriented data linkage, I think that the priority of realization is high for the school certificate and student commuter certificate, which have already been issued in paper form. On the other hand, regarding the handling of learning history, it is necessary to consider the handling of data, so I do not think it is a low priority, but it is difficult to handle it in parallel with certificates, so it has been said that separate consideration is necessary. In terms of organization-based data linkage, if this is realized, it is expected to improve the authenticity of data, including the effect of preventing human errors, and lead to a considerable reduction in the burden on the field. In addition, the opinion that the use of paper media only at the time of moving in and out and the use of mail means that the number of teachers who feel uncomfortable will increase in the future due to the spread of one terminal per person and the current digitalisation of various things in schools. In this sense, the use of data communication is expected to be accepted relatively smoothly in the field. On the other hand, it was pointed out that we need to be fully aware of the impact on the operability of the user side, and if we clear that point, there will be no need for excessive concern. In addition, in the case of university certificates, which are exchanged between schools in practice, I think we should consider whether the current work is really a necessary process for digitalisation. There was talk that it would be better not to make it a mere digitalisation of the existing process. In any case, all the parties concerned agreed that a careful explanation is necessary to gain their understanding. In terms of individual-based data collaboration, for example, individual support plans for special support are being created at schools, and if such information is shared through data, it will be much easier. In addition, the digitalisation of graduation certificates and academic transcripts has become an urgent issue in tertiary education, and with the increase in the number of international students and internationalization, the need for such certificates is steadily increasing. For scholarship applications and job hunting, procedures that were traditionally paper-based are being digitalisation, and when collaborating with overseas universities, it is conceivable that there will be a trend in which paper certificates will not be accepted in the future. Therefore, it was pointed out that various people may be in trouble if they move after their needs become apparent. In addition, the learning application used at school is basically operated so that the data will be deleted after graduation. Business operators pointed out that this may be disadvantageous for children in the future, when they consider the use of their own personal data in AI, etc., and that they should consider saving personal data such as personal logs in personal data stores, etc. It was pointed out that in the future, collaboration with social education institutions, collaboration with various fields such as the welfare field, and collaboration with NPOs, etc. should be considered. Also, regarding the implementation process, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology is currently making significant progress in the cloud version of the school affairs support system, and I think it is necessary to set the process in line with this period. Based on these, there are concerns that it will be quite difficult to introduce them all at once because each local government will consider it based on the results of the prior introduction. It is said that there is a good possibility that it will be introduced gradually in 2030 or 2013. In addition, you pointed out that a transitional period between municipalities that have introduced the system and those that have not will be unavoidable. Next, since the handling of personal information is severe, I would like to add to the points that you pointed out that it would be better to have an extra schedule for stable operation. With regard to the issue of authenticity, all of you agreed that it is of course necessary to prove that the issuer, recipient, and data have not been spoofed or falsified in digitalisation, and that it is necessary to consider the balance between costs and demands in terms of how far to require it. While it was pointed out that certificates are of course necessary, it was also said that it is necessary to deepen awareness in research and study on the extent to which individual learning history is required, as it may be related to usability in some cases. The electronic signature function for data security is of course necessary, so we received opinions from local government officials that they would like to ask the certification infrastructure to implement it as much as possible. Also, in relation to the protection of personal information in the operation of the system, I would like the government to take the lead in clarifying the basis for the introduction of the system and the accountability, and then proceed with the system. We strongly pointed out that it could be a big burden for parents to make individual inquiries to each local government and each school. On the other hand, regarding the information exchanged between organizations based on laws and ordinances, the person concerned said that he did not feel any particular discomfort because the current information was only replaced by data. And if the idea is to opt-in on personal data, it is basically what the person himself wants, so there is no sense of discomfort. In any case, all of you said that it would be important to clarify the standards of judgment on the ground from the perspective of protecting personal information. Another point of contention is that high school students and younger are minors, so they do not have the ability to make a contract, so there is a concern about whether it is okay to just give their consent, and there is also a reverse version, so it is naturally possible that there will be a discrepancy between the intentions of the person and his / her guardian. Some people want to use data, but their guardians do not, and vice versa. How to respond to this situation is not limited to education, but when it comes to data utilization, many people have said that it is an issue that relates to the entire digital society. However, the Secretariat is aware that there was no difference among the people who gave us their opinions on the point that basically the will of the person should be respected. Regarding the operation and on-site payment, first of all, together with gBizID and My Number Card, as I stated earlier, I would like to ask you to prepare a manual based on the assumption of how the on-site response will be required. In particular, at that time, there was a request for a quick manual rather than a thick administrative manual. In addition, he pointed out that it would take time to disseminate information to the field because there are many people involved, so from around fiscal 2026, communication based on the content of the survey and research would have to be carried out gradually. Also, in My Number Card, teachers said it would be quite difficult for children to come to each school at the same time. However, on the other hand, when necessary, if the child is accompanied by a guardian or through a home terminal, it would be within the scope of assumption. In any case, I pointed out that this is a topic that is easily misunderstood and that careful explanations are required. In any case, it was pointed out that the situation of My Number Card's possession is left to each individual, and that it is necessary to carefully examine how to respond to it. Also, in terms of implementation support for business operators, it is said that it will be difficult for business operators to suddenly turn the steering wheel unless they have a clear direction in three years. On the other hand, speed is an issue in implementation, so support for business operators is important, but business operators pointed out that enforcement and incentives are also worth considering. There are some EdTech companies that do not have the same infrastructure as large companies, so some subsidies may be necessary. Furthermore, it has been said in various places that there is a shortage of resources for engineers, and it has been pointed out that we need to be fully aware of that. In addition, although it is not directly related to the authentication infrastructure, the necessity of data standardization was also mentioned as a point to be noted in the point that it is necessary for data linkage. After all, standardization of metadata is necessary, and it is necessary to clear up the issue of how many units should be compiled. In particular, when making use of learning history and data portability, it would be a huge amount of capacity to keep logs one by one, so standardization for that is definitely necessary. At that time, you pointed out that two axes are necessary: the learning history of how you learned, what you learned, and at what level you learned. In addition, if these things become proper, the worldview that individuals analyze their own learning history by AI will become normal. Last but not least. In relation to the necessity of the perspective of lifetime data utilization, a certification system that can withstand lifetime use will be required. In particular, regarding the handling of data after graduation, you pointed out that it seems to be missing from the current discussion, so we have to think about that, so I have included it as a point to keep in mind. That's all the explanation from the secretariat.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. Now, I would like to exchange opinions. Today, I would like to mainly consider the use cases. If you have any comments, please raise your hand. I will nominate you. If you have any comments, please raise your hand. What do you think? The explanation I just gave is quite extensive, but mainly from the use cases. So, Mr. Nakabayashi, please.

Commissioner Nakabayashi:
This is Nakabayashi speaking. This is a very broad explanation. After listening to it this time, I feel that my head has been cleared up. This is a very basic confirmation. At the end of the interview, there were various opinions from various people. Do you mean that the use cases I explained at that time are the use cases at that level, such as organization-based or individual-based, which are included in the materials distributed today? Or, could you please confirm whether more specific cases like this were presented, and what granularity of information was explained?

Chairman Fujimura:
I see. Then, please start with the secretariat.

Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning:
Thank you for your question. First of all, the materials used in the hearing are the same as the materials I explained today. The same applies to the contents of the explanation. That's all.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. I think it's a rough use case, not a detailed one. Is that okay? If you have any further comments, please let me know.

Commissioner Nakabayashi:
If that is the case, is it correct to understand that there are probably various interpretations depending on each person's position?

Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning:
Yes, thank you very much. Of course, it is only our guess as to what kind of impression the interviewees had, but basically we started with the educators and based on what we heard there, we listened to the interviewees while giving feedback to the next interviewees. As much as possible, in that sense, what we had in mind was not exactly the same, but we tried to make it so that we could rub it together to some extent.

Commissioner Nakabayashi:
Yes, I understand. Thank you very much.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. How about the others? Mr. Fuji Sakae, please.

Committee Member Sakae Fuji:
Yes. Thank you for your explanation. Before going to the individual use cases, one thing I was a little concerned about in the materials I explained was, first of all, the authentication infrastructure, which is the keyword of authentication, and I felt that what each use case refers to is very mixed. Specifically, for example, in the context of the discussion on starting from an organization or linking data on the backend, the discussion focused on ID, especially identification and identifiers. Or, I thought that was the way it was perceived. It is a collection of identity and attribute information. I felt that there was a context in which it was mentioned, and there was also a context and use case that could be understood as referring to the data itself, including the training data. In addition, when you simply say authentication, I believe that comments have been made about simply logging in to PCs or services. First, I would like to know whether the explanation was based on this sort of arrangement, or whether the explanation was based on the concept of "authentication infrastructure." Depending on where the explanation was given, I would like to know whether the answer was given in a way that was convenient for everyone. What do you think about this?

Chairman Fujimura:
How about the secretariat?

Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning:
Yes, thank you very much. As you asked, when I first explained at the hearing, I had the impression that there were some people who were a little confused about logging in to their PCs. Regarding that, the secretariat gave a careful explanation about the concept and how to organize it, and they had an image of how to coordinate data between organizations. On the other hand, I believe that there were probably some people who were a little confused about the certification of entities and data. We recognize that we need to organize it carefully, for example, when conducting research and studies. Thank you very much.

Chairman Fujimura:
I believe that all of you have a common understanding of this issue, and I would like to thank Mr. Fuji Sakae.

Committee Member Sakae Fuji:
Yes, thank you.

Chairman Fujimura:
Mr. Itakura, please.

Commissioner Itakura:
Yes, thank you. What is assumed now is the work based on the regulations and the work that is actually done. I don't think there was any opposition to this part at all in the hearing, but since it will be dealt with at the busiest time (the end of the semester and the end of the fiscal year), it is completely nonsense to do it with paper and then with a letter. We are all happy that it has been eliminated, and I hope that you will proceed with it. On the other hand, I would like to submit a certificate as it is entirely up to the student, and if possible, I would like to bring my learning history to me and put it in my online learning application. If you go on to a higher school or transfer to another school, and if the format matches the online learning application they are using, you can add it and make your own data smarter. This is completely dependent on the individual's consent, so I think this is also appropriate. Of course, the latter part, the learning history, is online learning, or rather, it requires the cooperation of the vendors who are helping the e-school, so I think it will take time, but I think it is correct as a case. What is important here is "what is not included," but probably in the process of launching this, the use of AI such as watching over Mr. Children and Families Agency is not included in this. At the very least, we are proceeding with a complete reorganization of the back office and the return of what can be returned to the individual, and I think it would be better to properly announce from the beginning that the use of AI is a separate policy and is being carefully implemented separately. If we look at this case, I think that we are discussing on the premise that the use of the AI for watching over is not included, but it is very easy to get confused, and the jurisdiction is also easy to get confused, so I thought it would be better to say so. The other one, which was also mentioned by the secretariat at the beginning, is one person communication. I think there are many places where there are not only one person but also 0.5 person. I think there are places where there is one person in total for the head office and the board of education, or more specifically, there is one person in total for some administrative associations, and there are 0.2 people. I tend to go to well-organized places for interviews, and I'd like to hear stories about such places, but that's not the case. If everyone can't do it, we can't cooperate in the back office. It's very simple, and you can't raise your voice on the premise that even 0.1 or 0.5 people can do it properly. I can't say that I'm in trouble because there is no person in charge. With that in mind, I think it would be a good idea to first make it a big place to ask them to move forward. That's all for now.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. I have been listening to you with the understanding that you are absolutely right, because there are many big problems that are emerging due to the computerization of education. Do you have any comments from the secretariat?

Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning:
Yes, thank you very much. As Digital Agency, we have always been aware that the problem of one person communication system is a serious problem. As you mentioned earlier, we have to interview people who are unable to speak up. On the other hand, even if we interview them, we naturally find it difficult to verbalize their concerns. Therefore, I am aware that we have to use our imagination to explore the possibility that such local governments can implement it safely through research and study and subsequent technology demonstration. Thank you very much.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. Then, Mr. Ishizaka, please.

Member Ishizaka:
Yes. It overlaps with what Director-General Murakami said and what he heard, but in order to organize the use cases and share the image with everyone, or to smoothly implement it in society, I think it is necessary to understand what kind of information and what kind of data is exchanged. The so-called learning history, study log, and so on, there are things that you do not have an image of yet, and it is also related to standardization and operation, so I think it is necessary to establish rules. Generally speaking, compared to other countries, I think Japan is characterized by a weak cross-disciplinary standard for evaluations and grades. In the past, we have relied on things like entrance exams or deviation values in the private sector, but now that we can use data in various ways, we should be able to make use of this foundation by using it with everyone in a state of standardization or cross-pollination. If this data is fragmented and decided by each business operator and region, it cannot be used even if it is distributed. Therefore, I think it is necessary for the government to take the lead in sorting out the data as soon as possible. I believe that organizations can cooperate in various ways, so it is necessary to proceed quickly while paying attention to the scope and granularity. For example, for detailed learning records and learning behavior records, xAPI is the most common, but you need to organize the profiles. Also, there are many examples of low-level documents, such as academic transcripts and certificates. So-called micro-credentials should have a wide range of applications, such as the use of open badges. I think it is necessary to advance discussions not only on the standardization of formats, but also on various rules, such as storage obligations and conditions for deletion. Yes, that's all from me.

Chairman Fujimura:
I believe this is a very important point. You are absolutely right that we should consider not only the data linkage standards you just mentioned but also the data standards themselves. The scope of this committee is the certification infrastructure and the assurance of authenticity, so it is out of the scope for the committee to do all of this, but I would like to appeal to the committee that it is absolutely necessary to consider this in the future, and I would like to leave it in the minutes. Thank you very much.
Then, Mr. Ikeda, please.

Mr. Ikeda:
Hello, this is Ikeda from Toda City Board of Education. Thank you in advance. As for the use cases, I have been looking at them, and I would like to talk a little more about organizations, but I think there are various patterns in the current inter-organization situation, such as whether the school gives it to the next school founder or to the school. In addition, Mr. Director-General Murakami mentioned that the school principal's seal will be carried out as an organization, and I would like to ask about the issue of one person communication. In the first place, I think there is a discussion about whether it should be done with the principal's seal. In terms of changing DX and business processes, I think there are more things that the school establisher can do. The fact that we used paper means that we were able to share the work, so I think it would be a good idea to sort out what the school should do, what the school establisher should do, and what information should be passed between organizations. For example, a certificate of benefit for textbooks. The city government procures textbooks for each school founder, or for a slightly larger area, so there is no need to bother issuing them to schools. I think we can say the same thing about the enrollment certificate. I think it is necessary to sort out those things as well. In addition, regarding the use cases and granularity, which have been mentioned earlier, I would like to ask you to show a little more organized workflow, or I don't think it will be a full-fledged discussion unless it is organized. At the very end of the presentation, I believe that there are already various operations in each local government, so I think it is necessary to consider what can be done with the current operations. I would like to present what should be done from the current operations, and the Fit and Gap, which I believe is being done in various regions, and I think it is necessary to carefully sort out what is necessary to change the current operations, as well. This is what I believe. Digital Agency In addition, since the issue of the one person communication system of the Board of Education is truly a serious matter, I think it would be good to include in the scope what kind of system should be established and what kind of system is necessary to make this possible. Also, I think it is necessary to sort out the premises of this use case. In the first place, the school administration system is not connected to the Internet, which is impossible among the next-generation school administration DX, but I think there are still many systems in local areas that are based on the premise that the school administration system is not connected to the Internet and is only done on the intranet. Therefore, I think it is necessary to sort out the preconditions of what should be improved to make this use case possible. It's longer, but that's all.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. This was the opinion of Mr. Ikeda, who is familiar with both the schools and the administration, and I believe that it will become increasingly necessary to consider what to do while taking a concrete inventory and refining it. I believe that it will take some time, but I hope that you will do it thoroughly. Also, as a prerequisite, I would like to consider the network system in the background and other aspects of the direction that we need to consider in order to discuss the certification infrastructure. Thank you very much.
Then I will come in the order that you raise your hand. Mr. Kozaki, please.

Acting President Kosakiza:
I will also serve as the acting chair this time. Thank you in advance. Everyone knew the level of Director-General Murakami's talk, but while touching on things that were difficult to say, it was organized in a slightly in-depth manner. I felt that it is necessary to narrow down and consider what can be done immediately and what needs to be done with a sense of speed while thinking about what is common to many people. As for the realization of the use case, as I have seen from the hearing, we need to focus on the common part that affects everyone, for example, the guidance notes, which we have to create without fail, and which we feel as a burden in our work. I think it would be a good idea to use and utilize data while keeping in mind the ideal form and taking into consideration the prevention of human error in the case of organizations and large areas where teams are the starting point and where the entire organization must work first. This is because in Nara, we are actually exchanging high school entrance exam data. As Director-General mentioned earlier, there are so many procedures just because someone is transferring to another school, but high school entrance exams are even more complicated. Whether the board of education has checked it, whether the school has checked it, whether the person in charge of future education has checked it, or whether the teachers of the subjects have checked it, the homeroom teacher wants to check it. In any case, every time we check what we have entered into the computer, each person prints it out on paper, we all put pens in it, check it, correct it, enter it, submit it, and the person who received the submission prints it out on paper, and repeat the checking process. When I think about this interaction, there is a lot of data, but there are people who are involved and people who are not involved in each data. For example, when you want to give a grade and summarize it, if the information of the people who created the input and data at the beginning is coarse, if you find one, you will go back to checking the whole thing because you don't trust the others. After all, the effort of the people in charge is not only the work of generating simple data, but also the work of checking data that is not trusted by others, and if they say extreme things, they fall into a routine that it is faster to do it from scratch by themselves from the beginning. If the authenticity can be ensured by converting the flow of paper into data, it means that once it has been confirmed, it can be trusted and used without inspection. I think the tide will turn dramatically. Maybe we can sort out the fact that we were afraid of human error, or that we spent a lot of time worrying about the authenticity of the data. It is necessary to make a difference in the response according to the characteristics of the data, such as the part that it is certain because it has not been touched by a person, and the part that it is OK because it has been visually confirmed by a person. There are many kinds of data, such as organizational and overall statistics, as well as information that everyone, who is the starting point of each individual, has, for example, the results of medical examinations, and although it is not a public record, everyone must prepare a report card. In the case of Nara prefecture, the format of the report card was unified in all elementary schools. At first, the teachers said that the report card should be unique and that they were attached to the original form of the school, but the children and parents who receive it are not particular about it. It's not a teacher's idea, but it's a public education, so first of all, isn't it good to have a common base? No matter which school I go to, I see the academic ability guarantee from the same point of view. On top of that, if there is anything I can arrange or add, I asked them to add more and more, and they unified it. If we try to unify them, we will start to talk about whether we can get a taste of them and eliminate them as well. This will lead to the reduction of various things, so there is a direction to suddenly eliminate miscellaneous things or reduce labor. But first of all, if it is something we are doing anyway, we will try to standardize it together with everyone, and then, even if we have not done this much, we will stop it, and as the next step, we will stop it as a whole. It is important to keep the data consistent so that it does not fall into any of the following categories: "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it?", "Where is it? Other than that, it's a small thing, but the teachers' sense, we talked about data with the teachers the other day, but after all, it's about the problem of private characters, and after all, it has nothing to do with the content of education, whether it's right or wrong, we communicate with parents, and this character is different. Kozaki-san, you spend a lot of time asking, "Which is Saki, Saki or Saki?" That's why I want the government to show the policy for such a big part. As an aside, the name of gBizID, which was mentioned by the chairperson the other day, is fine, but for school teachers, it gives them a sense of what they want to manage by bringing something from outside into the school from somewhere, so gBizID is fine as it is, but when we handle educational data, we use the common name EID (gBizID). If we approach it in such a way as to make it familiar, I felt that teachers would feel close to it and would use it properly. That's all.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you. I think you made a lot of important points. First of all, what should be done to contribute to work-style reform through digitization? What I agree with is that when we think about the certification platform, when we think about securing authenticity, we need to think that we are doing it for DX. As Mr. Director-General Murakami and Mr. Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning mentioned earlier, we should not stop at digitizing paper documents. Some local governments make hand-written admission and withdrawal records when transferring in and out, but if such records can be automatically received, they can be properly generated, so they probably won't be needed. Also, local governments are currently operating with the idea of forms, but as long as the data is standardized, the output and layout don't matter. For example, I felt that it was necessary to consider such ideas. Therefore, I would like to make sure not to forget the DX perspective. It's about the name I mentioned last time. As for the gBizID case, I had a feeling that there would probably be quite a few people who would fall for it when I brought it to the educational field. For example, if we replace Biz with Public and think about using this system in various fields in the future, G pub ID and education are part of it. I also felt that it is important to reduce psychological resistance, as Commissioner Kozaki said. Thank you.

Murakami Director-General:
Just a few words on that point. I will accept G Pub ID as an assignment. gBizID is a matter of general discussion, so I am not sure if I can answer by the time this review meeting compiles the report, but I would like to consider the possibility of changing the name, so just a few words on that point first.

Chairman Fujimura:
I understand. Thank you very much.
Then, Mr. Izumi, please.

Mr. Izumi:
This is Izumi. I have 4 comments. The first is about how DX should be, and the second is about ownership of information and data. The third is about the scope of information sharing, and the fourth is about onboarding, which typically involves ID registration. First, regarding the direction of DX, many committee members commented on the transformation from paper to digital. In short, they were thinking about the work of sending and receiving paper or ledger information, and many people are also thinking about sending and receiving data, but this data should be considered in the form of sharing. In that case, from the important perspective of DX, value is addition and equipment is subtraction. Currently, different corporations have separate assets, typically information systems. We should think about how to subtract these assets socially. If we try to add additional equipment while maintaining that equipment, we will never be able to subtract or save labor. I think that unless we think about what kind of assets each corporation has and how to eliminate those assets, paper and ledgers will never disappear. In that sense, when thinking about the use cases of DX, I have a feeling that today we all discussed the current business, but even if we discussed the lives of ordinary people on Tokaido and Nakasendo before the Industrial Revolution, we cannot discuss railways and highways forever. I think it is important to discuss not the current business, but the new management, or the introduction to shift to that management, in short, the ideal way of assets that each corporation should have. In that sense, it is not a standard for connecting the assets of each organization. (In short, we should learn from the failure of the integration of several banks that standardization and system linkage work well, and it is probably not a correct approach to link systems by standardization.) If anything, I think that unless we move in the direction of "sharing not only data but also services" by sharing services among everyone, this difficult situation will probably not go well with interface standardization alone. That is, first of all, the way DX should be.
Second, regarding the ownership of information, for example, in the case of medical electronic medical records, of course, doctors, in short, are organization-originated information, but if they say that this is personal information, and it is organization-originated information, it is not personal information, the world will be thrown into chaos. So, this time, we discussed where the origin of information is, but we have to think about who the owner is in the first place, and how it will be shared based on ownership. In particular, today, I think we discussed medical records for learning, but I think it is important to consider whether it is a history, a certificate, or an official document, and if it is equivalent to an official document, whether it can be disposed of in five years. Who is the owner of such information, and what kind of certification requires what kind of permanence? I think it is important to discuss certification and permanence at the same time, rather than the issue of official documents and disposal.
The third point is the scope of sharing. Today, we are mainly sharing information within a limited number of corporations, but in the first place, the owner of the information shares it with private companies or overseas organizations on his or her own will, and at the request of individuals, information may be shared between organizations. In that sense, what is the important scope of sharing information? In that case, it is important to share it with children's cafeterias and private companies that provide guidance, so the scope of sharing, in particular, in that case, not only the learning history but also a certain kind of behavior history such as the number of attendance days, may be required to be shared, or it may be better to do so, I think it is important to discuss this, so please also discuss the scope of sharing.
The fourth and final comment was on ID or onboarding. I think it is strange that the existence of individuals is not verified at the national level, but as for the existence of corporations, there are discussions on different points, such as boards of education or local governments. In that case, regarding onboarding to receive services, such as admission, transfer, or receiving services from private companies, if you say that it is not allowed unless it is registered by the national government, it may mean that those who have returned from overseas and have short-term residence permits will not be admitted. In order to prevent this, it is important to minimize the scope of certification from the perspective of maximizing the discretion of local governments, schools, and others. In terms of the infrastructure for that, it is also important not to reinvent the wheel or own similar non-existent assets. I would like to ask you to consider the onboarding process from the perspective of the discretion of individuals and organizations, and that is all.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. I was listening to you because I thought you were really good at AIST. As for onboarding, I was also listening to you because I thought it would lead to a distinction between authentication and authorization. Thank you very much.
I would like to go in the order of Committee Member Nakabayashi and Committee Member Fuji Sakae. Thank you.

Commissioner Nakabayashi:
I've heard a lot of opinions from everyone, and I thought they were reasonable. I would like to ask a very detailed question, but I believe that there was talk of a one person information system. Is it not permissible for local governments or public schools to outsource such work? Because, like this time, if we work hard to build a foundation, develop a system, and make it easy to use at the site, I think it will be endless. If you are doing a similar task with a limited time line, for example, the local government will cooperate and outsource this task to this company. As a private company, it is quite natural to outsource such overhead work to a company that is good at such work, and I felt that this would improve efficiency and ease the on-site work. When I was listening to you, I felt that if you think hard only with the technical side, you will not be able to do well, and the field will not be easy. There is no end to it. If there are any legal restrictions, I think it would be difficult to do so in various ways. However, as I mentioned at the end of my speech earlier, if the idea is that we should summarize it somewhere, we should do so somewhere. I felt that if I didn't have a point of view from a business point of view, I wouldn't be able to make progress. Of course, it is extremely important to standardize various data, and I think it is necessary to provide guidelines for that, but it may be difficult to draw a line. Also, if you think about the burden on the site, that's the most important thing, like the 0.1 Humanity Crisis. In other words, if a person who is engaged in the specialized work, such as 0.5 Ninjo-Sys, does it, the efficiency will increase tremendously. However, if I have to do various tasks little by little, I think there will be huge losses and overall efficiency will be very low, so I felt that it would be easier to advance discussions if I had such a perspective.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. If I may add a little, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology also issued a notice about it more than 10 years ago, asking us to actively engage in service procurement in the form of outsourcing, etc., and it has already been issued. Probably, various local governments are doing such things, but they have not even thought of it. I think this is the current situation.

Murakami Director-General:
May I have a word from Murakami?

Chairman Fujimura:
Here you go.

Murakami Director-General:
As the chairman explained, procurement outsourcing, procurement operations, and procurement service outsourcing are not prohibited by any rules, so I hope that you will actively utilize them. However, as a preliminary step, I believe that standardization of procurement specifications is important in relation to the content I explained earlier.

Commissioner Nakabayashi:
I was going to say that, too. In short, when we outsource, we have to make sure that the specifications are firm and that it's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's policy. That's why it's extremely important to consider the specifications, and we have to make sure that we outsource this part. That's what I was going to say now.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. You were right, but the main mission here is how to establish a common authentication infrastructure and how to guarantee authenticity, and how to create common specifications and how to promote them. Thank you very much.
Committee Member Fuji Sakae, please.

Committee Member Sakae Fuji:
Yes, I'm sorry that it's the second lap. There are two items. One is to secure data-linkage. Director-General Murakami also talked about how to confirm the authenticity of the related sender and receiver. Mainly for the purpose of securing data-linkage, how to ensure the authenticity of the related entity, data-authenticity, and route-authenticity should be discussed in terms of both technology and rules. This is a general view. In particular, regarding the use cases for the rules, I think it would be a good idea to clearly state that the rules will be improved a little as we dig deeper into the use cases. It's called a trust framework, and in the context of this ID, we talk about this rule. Especially, it's about the life cycle. I think it should be clearly stated there. For example, in the application process for gBizID, who will guarantee whether it is a school or not? For example, if a school is to be merged or abolished, how to handle the ID itself will probably need to be regulated. Also, in the case of individuals who use the Public Personal Authentication as a starting point, it will be necessary to consider whether or not they are actually students, or whether or not they are actually guardians, and whether or not they continue to be guardians. As for the potential partners that can be shared as mentioned by Mr. Izumi earlier, if there is a possibility that private companies will come in, whether or not such companies continue to be appropriate as potential partners. It includes onboarding. Who is going to make sure that it can be shared because it is appropriate, and whether it will continue to be appropriate? Rather than talking about technology, I think it is more about governance and rules, so I think it would be good to clearly state in this output that such things should be decided. The other point is about gBizID. According to the secretariat document, the discussion will be held in gBizID, starting with organizations, and starting with individuals in My Number Card, and gBizID has its own level of assurance and guarantee, so it will be fine. The original NIST guidelines used to define gBizID assurance levels were to think a little bit about this on a risk basis. This is our basic idea, so I think we should evaluate it carefully. Specifically, in the NIST guidelines SP 800-63, cases where there is a risk of loss of life, reputation, or damage are basically mapped to Level 3. But in the current situation in gBizID, gBizID Prime is Assurance level 2. So, what do you think about the gap in mapping? For example, depending on whether or not there is a possibility of a life crisis due to some kind of damage to the student data this time, we will use it properly. I have no objection to the idea that gBizID is reasonable because it is available now, but I believe that it is necessary to show that gBizID is selected based on risk assessments and level mapping in a consistent manner. That's all.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. With that in mind, I would like to consider it in the future. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Ishii, please.

Mr. Ishii:
Yes, thank you. Your opinion has already been raised, so I would like to make a few comments on the personal information protection section, although I would like to make a confirmatory statement. In 4 of the handout, there is a slide that summarizes personal information protection. It's 16 slides. Regardless of whether it is organization-based or individual-based, I do not think there will be any major problems with such data transfer or collaboration based on the laws and ordinances or the individual's will. However, if it is based on the will of the person, I think there may be a case where the idea or intention differs from that of the guardian, so in such a case, I think it will be decided which will be prioritized based on the age such as 16 years old. With regard to the discussion on educational data, I believe there is no doubt that the cooperation of private sector is indispensable for GIGA School Concept to promote educational digital transformation. However, I believe that there is a need for the protection of personal information and privacy in public education institutions, where data should be handled only within the scope of achieving the educational objectives of public education. In that sense, I believe that the governance system on the side of providing school education is extremely important. In order to prevent its use from deviating from the original purpose, which is the educational purpose, it should be prevented. I think that point of view is also important. Also, as Professor Itakura pointed out, data-linkage for monitoring, in other words, it is different from Children and Families Agency's policy, and I think it is necessary to properly separate them. The 7 in the handout is about the hearings with the people concerned. Regarding personal information protection, there are various points you have pointed out, and I think this is a section where important matters are neatly summarized. At the same time, there is an item related to the necessity of a perspective on data use and application throughout a lifetime, and I think that the fact that data that can be used throughout a lifetime remains may hinder the growth of the person, in other words, there may be disadvantages due to lifetime use in some cases. It is necessary to have a clear idea of what data needs to be made available for how long, for how long, and for which organization. I believe this point is also important from the perspective of protecting personal information. That's all from me.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you. There are various aspects such as the lifecycle of the data I just received, but there is probably a separate committee discussing data standardization, and I believe that it will mainly discuss these issues, and we will discuss the authentication infrastructure and data authenticity while touching on and paying attention to these aspects. As you said, I agree that we should create a framework that can be used over a lifetime, but I also agree that we should identify how each data is handled. Actually, in terms of the current situation in the field of education, there is a gap between early childhood education and elementary and secondary education. There is no data linkage at all, there is no access from high school to higher education, and there is no access to lifelong learning after finishing university or graduate school. It is probably important to have an idea of creating a foundation for cooperation, but I have been thinking that we should properly consider each of them. Thank you very much for your valuable opinion. I have been listening to various opinions and opinions, and I have heard them with the same feeling. I also learned a lot myself. Also, I don't have many opinions about higher education. When I'm at university, most of the things that foreign students bring with them, such as certificates of enrollment and academic achievement, are fake. Also, when sending foreign students abroad, it's very common that they can't receive them unless they go electronic. I also felt that this is an urgent issue as a use case. As you mentioned earlier, I would like to consider in detail the other use cases that you added in the future.
I was wondering if anyone else had any comments on the use case.

Commissioner Itakura:
Yes, this is Itakura speaking. Professor Ishii's point earlier is important. It depends on how the parents think about it, and it depends on whether they see the learning history live or just put it in the AI and use it for their own study. Also, it is a so-called investigation report. This is not supposed to be provided on a voluntary basis. In a similar vein, you might be a little startled, but there is the issue of whether we can disclose the medical records of the prison to the person in question. The case was brought to the Supreme Court, and it was decided that the records could be submitted because they were medical records (Supreme Court, June 15, 2021, Minshu Vol. 75, No. 7, p. 3064). However, the decision was originally made to prevent the practice of disclosing criminal records by oneself (the Supreme Court stated, "Personal information related to criminal trials and other related matters includes information such as an individual's criminal record and history of detention, and if such information becomes the subject of a disclosure request, it is used for the examination of criminal records by a third party by, for example, requiring the submission of the results of the disclosure request at the time of employment, and it is considered to have been made for the purpose of preventing such harmful effects as hindering the social rehabilitation of the person concerned"). In the same way, if it becomes possible to submit personal information by oneself, it is possible that some places will ask the person to bring a written investigation. This is not originally intended for school teachers. It is made on the assumption that it is only for high school. In this way, the extent of disclosure to the person must be considered individually. Also, if the standardization is done properly and the data becomes light, it is possible to consider saving it until he becomes an adult for the time being, although there is a relationship with his parents. There was also the result of a questionnaire about what to do if parents erase it, but I think such a viewpoint is also necessary. I thought it would be a detailed discussion to be considered in the future, including for what purpose and how much of each data should be stored and who should control it. That's all. Thank you.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. There is a consultative body that directly addresses the points you just mentioned, and such discussions are currently underway at the Advisory Council on the Utilization of Educational Data established in Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. In addition, there is another council on data standardization, and based on the results of that council, I would like to ask the committee to consider how the authentication infrastructure and authenticity should be ensured. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your comments.
Then, please explain the schedule of the next meeting from the secretariat.

Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning:
Yes, thank you very much. As for the next schedule, as I explained at the beginning, it will be Friday, March 21, from 15:00 to 17:00 for two hours. The mode of implementation will be online, the same as this time. Today, we discussed and received advice on the use cases in the second half of the meeting, and for the next meeting, the Secretariat has submitted a candidate proposal for the actual implementation pattern. Based on the discussion, I would like to ask for in-depth discussions on the actual issues, such as ensuring authenticity and field operations. That's all from the Secretariat.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you very much. If you let the secretariat know by e-mail or other means later today about any omission of opinions, we would like to reflect it in the meeting minutes. Lastly, I would like to close this meeting by having a supplementary explanation on what kind of information is available on Children and Families Agency Matters, as I do not think a common understanding has been reached yet on Children and Families Agency Matters.

Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning:
Before Children and Families Agency was established, the former Kodomo-han in Digital Agency was in charge of the demonstration project being promoted in Children and Families Agency, so I think we can explain the broad outline ourselves.

Chairman Fujimura:
Yes, please.

Hisayoshi Director for Policy Planning:
The so-called "Children's Data Collaboration" being promoted in Children and Families Agency is often mentioned in the field, but the demonstration project is mainly conducted by local governments to identify children and families who potentially need support at an early stage by collating sensitive information, such as information on education as well as social welfare and parents' information, and connect it to push-type and outreach support. Of course, this is related to the protection of personal data, and whether or not the prediction is actually correct, and there are various sensitive aspects, so I believe that Children and Families Agency is proceeding quite carefully. That is all.

Chairman Fujimura:
Thank you for the follow-up. Therefore, we would like to remove that part from the scope of this time so that we can have a common understanding. I also remember that I am doing that part with great consideration as I am the chair of the school expense subsidy system of Government Cloud. Then, thank you very much for the active discussion. I think there are many parts that I am not satisfied with, so please contact the secretariat by email. Now, the first review meeting is a little early, but I would like to close it. Thank you very much for today.