First meeting of the Advisory Council on Standardization of Characters in Local Government Information Systems

Overview

Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 (2025) from 17:00 to 19:00
Location: Sabo Hall and online conference
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Agenda
  1. Current Efforts to Standardize Characters in Local Government Information Systems
  2. Matters to be considered
  3. Exchange of views
3. Closing

Material

Agenda (PDF/189KB)
Appendix 1: Outline of the Advisory Council on Standardization of Characters in Local Government Information Systems (PDF / 193 kb)
Appendix 2 Establishment and Operation of Public Relations Working Team and Expert Working Team of the Advisory Council on Standardization of Characters in Local Public Entity Information Systems (PDF / 149 kb) (updated on January 15, 2025)
Appendix 3: Considerations for Character Standardization in Local Public Entity Information Systems (PDF / 1,783 kb) (updated on January 15, 2025)
Meeting Summary (PDF/375KB)

Related policy

Unification and standardization of key operation systems of local governments

Summary of proceedings

Date

Tuesday, January 7, 2025, from 17:00 to 19:00

Location

Sabo Kaikan / Online

Attendee

*Honorifics

Chairman

Masahiko Shoji (Professor, Faculty of Sociology, Musashi University)

Member

OBATA Junko (Professor, Nihon University Graduate School of Law)
GOTO Shoji (Representative Director and President, Regional Information Technology Laboratory Co.
Hiroyuki Sasahara, Professor, Waseda University
Kenichi Shirato (Manager of Health Promotion Section, Health and Welfare Department, Mitaka City)
Satoshi Harada (Senior Director, DX Promotion, Kyoto Sangyo University)
Yusuke MASAKI (Vice-Minister for Digital Transformation, Chief Officer of Digital Agency, Kobe)
Jun Inumaru (Director, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
Ichiro Nagose (Director, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Promotion Office, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, digital infrastructure)
Rin SAKURABA (Director of the First Civil Affairs Division, Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau) * Absent
Takayuki KOKUBUN (Director, First Civil Affairs Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice)
MINOHARA Tetsuhiro (Director in charge of Data Standardization and Quality Improvement Support, Digital Society Common Functions G, Digital Agency)

Associate member

Masahiro KAMANAKA (INES Corporation)
Sayaka Yazawa (NEC Corporation)
Hiroaki Aoki (Hitachi Systems, Ltd.)
Kazuhisa Omura (Fujitsu Japan Ltd.)
Makoto Kawaguchi (Fujifilm System Service Co., Ltd.)
Yuki Hayase (Ryobi Systems Corporation)
Masakazu YOSHIDA (RYOMO SYSTEMS CO.,LTD.)

Agenda

Current Efforts to Standardize Characters in Local Government Information Systems
Matters to be considered
Exchange of views

Handout

Appendix 1: Outline of the Advisory Council on Standardization of Characters in Local Government Information Systems
Appendix 2: Establishment and Operation of Public Relations Working Team and Expert Working Team
Appendix 3 Considerations for Character Standardization in Local Government Information Systems

Business

The Advisory Council was established in accordance with the Outline of the Advisory Council in Appendix 1. Its members are listed in the Appendix. Professor Masahiko Shoji, Faculty of Sociology, Musashi University, was appointed as the chair. The Working Team was established in accordance with Appendix 2. Mr. Satoshi Harada was appointed as the Public Relations Working Team Chief and Mr. Shoji Goto was appointed as the Expert Working Team Chief.
The secretariat explained "This year's approach to character standardization and the present state of character identification", "Outline of the review meeting on the operation of character requirements in local government information systems", "Composition of this Advisory Council", and "Issues of the Advisory Council and each WT".

Question

Member: The secretariat explained that, "There are various characters in family registers, depending on the type of writing and writing habits." To add to this, in addition to the type of writing and writing errors, there are also zoji and characters that the Japanese intentionally created by combining kanji based on the structure of kanji. Such characters have played a part in Japanese kanji culture. Since gaiji will be one of the topics of discussion this time, I think that the view of gaiji will also be important. There are such types of characters, that is, newly created characters, like Watanabe no Be (Nabe), other than the type of characters, and I think that how far they will be digitized in the future is also an important issue for this conference.

Member: Am I correct in understanding that what I just said corresponds to page 3 of Appendix 3?

Member: That's right. If this material is to be used in the future, it would be good if the word "zoji" is included, saying, "In the family register, it depends on Kuzureji, writing habits and zoji."

Member: I have four questions.
The first point is about the obligation and schedule of character identification. On page 13 of Handout 3, it says, "It is essential to identify the' gaiji' currently in use as standard characters for administrative work by fiscal 2025." Is this mandatory for local governments? I understand that this project is being promoted based on the Standardization Act. I do not think that all standard compliance system will complete the transition by the end of fiscal 2025, but if the time limit for character identification work is extended accordingly, the characters in the non-conforming family register will be reported to Digital Agency one after another almost every year in the future. Since a time limit for character identification should be set separately from the time limit for standardization, shouldn't the time limit be shown to local governments by saying, "Please be sure to submit it to Digital Agency by when?"

The second point is about publicity and the treatment of the subject. Although each local government may make a certain amount of publicity at its discretion, it is recognized that it does not necessarily give individual notice to the subject of identification. However, there is a possibility that the subject of identification will say, "This is not my kanji." In that case, what kind of measures will be taken?

The third point is the legal basis. At present, the Written Procedures for Character Identification and the Guidelines for Character Inclusion are presented as technical advice. If it is technical advice, the final decision will be the responsibility of the local government. However, even if the local government can identify characters based on the Written Procedures for Character Identification and the Guidelines for Character Inclusion, if residents say, "The use of those characters will never be permitted," does it have a legal basis to explain, "This is what the national rules are like?" I think it should be shown not as Digital Agency's technical advice but as Ministry of Justice's standards for processing legal entrusted affairs.

The fourth point is on page 17 of Document 3, "How far should we open up the standardization of characters?" Basically, I think it is necessary to open up. It is important to be able to sufficiently explain to residents that "characters are supposed to be handled in this way as a national policy" in the standardization of characters on a national scale.

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the The first point is not yet a ministerial ordinance, but based on the Standardization Act, it is positioned to be identified as an administrative office standard character by FY 2025, and it is possible to retain external characters during the transitional period.

Regarding the second point, I expect that the Public Relations Working Team will discuss the way of public relations in the future. Some local governments are considering individual communication because the number of people whose shapes change is limited to a small number, and I have heard that some local governments will conduct general public relations but not individual communication. On the other hand, I would like the Public Relations Working Team to consider what kind of public relations the government should do so that local governments do not have to worry when explaining to residents.

Regarding the third point, although family registers are legally entrusted affairs, identification affairs are only technical advice in laws and ordinances because they are autonomous affairs. On the other hand, some say that local governments cannot provide sufficient explanations to residents if the central government's policies are not clearly stated. I would like the Public Relations Working Team to discuss the contents so that the reason for the change of characters and the purpose of the policy can be easily understood.

I believe that the fourth point will also be included in the discussion of the Public Relations Working Team.

Member: As for the first point, I think it corresponds to 4 on page 13 of the material.

Member: Standardization Act may be postponed depending on the circumstances of the local government, but shouldn't there be a deadline that says, "Please be sure to complete identification regardless of the deadline of the Standardization Act?" I understand that the process is to notify the Digital Agency once for the characters that cannot be identified, and then to consider additional registration as Standard Characters for Administrative Affairs as necessary. However, if we do not say, "Please be sure to submit it by this deadline," the process will occur every year forever.

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the identification is as you pointed out. Basically, the use of the identification support tool is known to be until fiscal 2025, and the identification itself is guided to be completed by fiscal 2025.

However, as the basic policy was revised by the Cabinet decision at the end of last year and the specified transition support system was positioned, the current situation is that it is quite difficult for some local governments to identify by FY 2025, and they are proceeding to complete the identification by FY 2025 in principle.

Regarding the notification of characters that cannot be identified, the Character Identification Procedure Manual states that the notification form should be shown in Digital Agency, but this has not been shown yet. Therefore, we would like to inform the local government as soon as possible. In addition, we would like you to notify the local government after setting a certain time limit. We would like to pay attention so that the work will not occur every year and the completion of identification to the administrative office standard characters will not be delayed.

Member: As for confirmation, since the deadline will be fiscal 2025, is it correct to understand that the text requirement as one of the data requirements will be determined by the end of fiscal 2025 by creating a ministerial ordinance?

Member: Technical Co., Ltd. to set the deadline for the implementation of the data requirements, including the character requirements, earlier than the end of FY 2025. Is it correct to understand that this is not the case, and that they are planning to create a ministerial ordinance with a deadline of the end of FY 2025?

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the has not been confirmed, but we are working to complete the identification by the end of FY 2025, so we are aware of that at present.

Member: Public Relations Working Team. It is my understanding that the characters in family registers will remain as "Sei" in relation to family registers, and that the standard characters for administrative affairs will be treated as "Sei" characters in relation to notifications and certifications of administrative affairs. Based on this understanding, various press articles have published relatively easy-to-understand character inclusion guidelines and identification cases. However, I remember that there were cases that were somewhat difficult to understand in past review meetings, and I am concerned that if discussions are not promoted by presenting various cases, local governments may not be able to fully explain to residents. I feel that it is necessary for the government to promote open discussions.

In addition, at universities, names in Chinese characters are written on graduation certificates, etc., which is a requirement for qualifications, and strict accuracy is required for characters. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure consistency with characters in family registers and residence certificates, and a considerable number of character sets are maintained and operated. I feel that universities are also greatly interested in this issue, and I think there are other fields in which they are also interested, but is it correct to understand that the open system is a discussion that includes fields other than local governments?

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the Administrative Office The standard characters themselves are the characters in the local government system, but it is true that they are used in various places, such as educational institutions, financial institutions, and private companies, and it is necessary to communicate our efforts to such stakeholders.

Member: Since this issue concerns a wide range of people, I think that what can be opened should be opened. On the other hand, what I was concerned about in the past study meetings was that in the world of standardization technology, I was taught that there are unique rules such as "if this is opened, a yokoyari will come." I hope that you will pay attention to the consistency of these rules.

Member: people because there are issues of identity and personal feelings. On the other hand, I understand that in the coming era, as an administration, we must also value efficiency. As a local government, it is an advantage that administrative work becomes efficient through system standardization and character identification, but on the other hand, there are situations where complaints are expected from some residents, so I can imagine that we will be caught in the middle. Therefore, the government also needs to carefully create a system standardization mechanism.

As a basic confirmation, with regard to "Public awareness and publicity for the people" on page 13-2, only "The font does not change, but the shape changes", so to speak, it is a "difference in design". However, the size, height, height and length of page 7 of the document can certainly be seen as such. There are various fonts among the characters that the people usually see, and depending on the font, there are patterns that do not look the same, so if it is within the range of that "difference in design", I think there is little problem in standardizing it. In that case, there are many cases where administrative work can be carried out without bothering to notify the subject that the shape has changed. As a public relations, it may be enough to tell the subject that "We will unify the shape of characters like this in the future for administrative work". However, not all characters can be treated as such, and it may be necessary to inform the subject of characters that change greatly that "We will change the shape of characters to improve the efficiency of administrative work", and it can be assumed that there will be inquiries from residents if it is changed without permission.

What I would like to ask is, how many Chinese characters are there that cannot really be identified, in terms of quantity, and how few, in terms of proportion?

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the Handout 3. This figure shows the character development project in Ministry of Justice. The character development project was started when Ministry of Justice tried to develop a family register duplicate data management system in response to the damage to the family register system during the Great East Japan Earthquake. First, we collected the characters implemented in the family register system of the local government, and found that there were about 1.63 million characters. When we examined the contents carefully, we found that there were substantial overlaps among them, and when those overlaps were removed, there were about 700,000 characters. We tried to identify those 700,000 characters into the "character information base" consisting of about 60000 characters developed in Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. As a result, we were able to identify about 550,000 characters in the character information base, and the remaining about 150,000 characters could not be identified. What to do with these about 150,000 characters was a problem, but Ministry of Justice decided to group about 150,000 characters according to the formation of characters, etc., to make it about 50000 characters, and then register all of them.

About 60000 characters and about 50000 characters, for a total of about 110,000 characters. However, when we checked the characters used in the family register with about 50000 characters, we found that about 40000 characters were not actually used. They were not used in the family register, but under the judgment of the vendor, "There is a possibility that this character will be used," old Chinese characters and others were registered as character sets. As a result, about 60000 characters in the character information base and about 10,000 characters that could not be identified as the character information base and were actually used in the family register were added, making 70000 characters the standard characters for administrative work. Therefore, the characters used in the family register are characters that can be identified as the standard characters for administrative work and are within the range of design differences.

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the about their past efforts to computerize family registers, we found that there were differences among the local governments. The scale of characters that could not be identified also differed among the local governments. In addition to the scale of the local governments, I have the impression that the local governments that followed the local governments' policies at the time of computerization did not have such a big impact, and in other local governments, there is a tendency that characters will change as they are identified in the future.

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the family register should be identifiable as standard characters for administrative work. Of the 20 subsumption criteria, all local governments can be considered to be design differences if they are large, small, long, or short. However, some of them cannot be considered to be design differences. The three lines on the right side of the characters' sugi' and' kata' are often given as examples. Those in which the slope of the three lines is reversed only at the bottom are also considered to be design differences in the character subsumption guidelines. Some local governments are of the opinion that "the character subsumption guidelines state that it is a design difference and can be identified, but it may be clearly different." Similar points can also be made by residents. In other words, it is important for local governments and residents to widely understand the character subsumption guidelines.

Member: I would like to make a comment on a very important topic that has come up. The characters and forms are used separately in the materials, but this is described in the table shown in the Naikakuho and Naikaku-kunrei issued by Cultural Affairs Agency, the list of Kanji for common use. The form is an abstract shape, a concept, and is often described as the frame of the character. On the other hand, the form is a shape that has such a difference in reality, for example, whether the character Ki jumps or does not jump, but in this case, it is only a difference in design and the form is the same. The distinction between the form and the form is shown by Cultural Affairs Agency as a national language policy and a Chinese character policy.

However, in the case of the Basic Resident Register, for example, I think that the main reason is that handwritten family registers have been digitized. However, it seems that local governments have been making a considerable distinction between the differences in characters at the design level and describing them in resident records, etc. There are many things that seem to be just differences in characters, and this seems to be one of the reasons why residents are conscious that "this character is the character of our home."

However, Cultural Affairs Agency, based on the idea that characters are social entities and useful tools, divides the forms of characters according to the standards I mentioned earlier. However, there are some concerns about whether this consensus has been achieved even in elementary schools. If you look closely at the list of Kanji for common use, there are some words that can be read as not being directly applied to proper nouns. For example, there is a character called yoshida no Yoshi, but some people, such as Sawara-Yoshi and Tsuchi-Yoshi, strongly insist on the distinction as a noticeable difference in the length of the upper part. According to the list of Kanji for common use, this is only a difference in the form of characters, that is, a difference in design. However, in many Chinese-Japanese dictionaries, it is said that this is a secular character and the form of characters is different. As a person concerned and as a general citizen, I feel that the concept of forms and forms itself has not penetrated sufficiently.

I believe that this meeting is the final settlement of the e-government project, which deals with characters. Therefore, I have to think about how we can overcome this problem of consensus and identity, and I would like to hear various things from you.

Member: I would like to make three points.
The first point is on the operational side. At present, local governments are greatly helped by the publication of character identification procedures and character inclusion guidelines. In the past, the work process of character identification was something like a craftsmanship by visual observation by local government officials. With the publication of certain standards and guidelines, it becomes easy to be specified as one candidate, and the efficiency of character identification work seems to advance considerably.

As for the second point, I have the same opinion as other members, but I think it is necessary to clarify the schedule for character identification. After all, I think it is necessary to indicate the deadline during this meeting. I think there are many local governments that have worked out a detailed schedule for the transition to standard compliance system, but if character standardization is added to this, not only the local governments but also the vendors will have to consider it. I think there are principles and exceptions, but I would like to see them proceed so that the local governments that took the lead do not lose money. It would also be good if the prospect of future subsidies from the national government for character identification work is also clarified. I think this is a point that all local governments would like to confirm.

The third point is about public relations. Until now, technical terms have been used in character inclusion guidelines and character identification procedures, etc., as materials for the government officials. It is good to use easy-to-understand words in the materials for staff to explain to residents. The materials may have different levels such as beginner, intermediate, and advanced. Although there is a problem of how much it can be known to residents, I hope that public relations will be promoted while showing the purpose that standardization of characters will "lead to improved services for residents and administrative efficiency" in the future.

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the local government. It is also important to consider what kind of media and how to use it for public relations. I would also like the Public Relations Working Team to discuss materials for studying among local government officials.

Member: Secretariat. Is there a non-conforming family register in Page 5 of Document 3?

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the is not included. I told you earlier that the characters entered in family registers should be identified as the standard characters for administrative work, but the characters in non-conforming family registers are the last characters that remain and cannot be identified.

Member: In the discussions so far, I think that whether the story of character identification is a story in these five pages or a story of non-conforming family registers that do not appear on those five pages, it will be different whether it is at a level that can be said to be a difference in design or not. I think that it will be discussed in the future, especially in the specialized working team, but it is better to make a distinction. In addition, regarding transitional measures, I think that the transitional measures for characters themselves are transitional measures that can be used separately even if they are not specific transition support systems. Including such points, since today's discussion is oral, I would like the secretariat to prepare in a way that all members can see the same thing and discuss with the same understanding, starting from clarifying the current situation by presenting materials and sentences, and we would like to cooperate.

Member: script is really troublesome, and I understand the situation on the ground very well. I would like to say once again, knowing that it is quite difficult to organize it neatly.

Rules must be easy to understand. Very complicated rules are difficult to understand even by the people. In most cases, the explanation to residents is done by municipal officials, but it is also difficult for officials to understand and may not be able to explain correctly.

It is understandable that the characters used in the names on family registers are the "thoughts" of residents, but that is why it is important to be able to provide a basis for explanation when explaining to residents about changing the characters at the family register counters of municipalities. Administrative affairs must be efficiently executed. I am concerned about the increase in work and expenses related to the various environments and issues surrounding the characters. What should be done to make it more efficient? In order to identify citizens in all kinds of affairs, the characters used in names are a very big factor even in private companies such as medical institutions and financial institutions, for example, and there should be no difference in handling them. In other words, about 70000 characters in the standard characters for administrative affairs may exceed the number that can be distinguished by human understanding. If that is the case, I think it is necessary to devise to a certain extent to aggregate the number of characters within the range that can be actually used by human understanding. The number of characters that can be used on smartphones, including ordinary personal computers, is said to be about 10,000 characters. If it becomes possible to do business within this range, including private companies such as medical institutions and financial institutions, it should be possible to display characters in the same form. I think it is possible to aim for that as one direction.

There are non-conforming family registers. These are family registers that are kept as paper family registers because they contain characters that cannot be digitized when the family registers are digitized. According to research conducted by past study groups, the number of non-conforming family registers has decreased to about 10,000 nationwide. With the total number of family registers ranging from about 50 million to about 60 million, I feel that this is also a sign that the understanding of residents has changed in response to changes in the world.

In order to make this possible, it is necessary to reconsider the issue of family registers, although Digital Agency has emphasized that simple procedures can be carried out with a smartphone, that application procedures can be carried out with a smartphone or online, and that they can be completed in 30 seconds. It is acceptable to discuss the issue widely again after indicating the future direction, arrival point, and deadline. If there is room for discussion in this expert council, I would appreciate it if we could discuss it again. Once again, I would like to ask you to consider organizing the whole thing so that city, ward, town, and village officials can explain to residents well. If there are about 10,000 non-conforming family registers, I think it would be good to examine whether or not the resident records of the people in the family registers have been computerized, and if so, what the basis is. It may also be good to investigate at this time how many people in total have family registers that are within JIS X 0213. I do not intend to correct difficult questions, but I would like to hear comments from the secretariat if there are any.

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the It remains to be seen how far the discussions will go, but I think you are right about what you pointed out. On the other hand, there are various difficult histories in unifying and standardizing characters, so how to eventually reduce the number to about 70000 characters is a major challenge for the time being. Although there is a major future direction, we must first resolve the immediate issues. We would like to have discussions on that first, and if possible, on a major direction.

Member: municipal government has long struggled with the issue of characters, and I strongly hope that this debate will put an end to the issue of characters.

As for the unification to JIS X 0213 mentioned earlier, I personally think that it is good in principle, but I feel that it is difficult to realize it at this stage. Looking at the situation of universities, we have no choice but to have two names, one for official documents and the other for display on smartphones, etc., and I think this is the reality in Japan. Even if I have no choice but to have two names, I would like to tell you that I am attending this Advisory Council because I would appreciate it if the discussion on characters could be concluded on the premise of that.

Member: This time, I think it is important not only to carry out public relations, but also to confirm how the people, parties concerned, local government sites and vendors will perceive it.

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the First of all, I would like to mention the fact that there was a plan to unify the characters into JIS X 0213 when the study of character requirements began. However, when I asked local governments and various related parties for their opinions, the majority of them said that it was not at that stage yet. Since then, this discussion has been carried out with a certain degree of idealism and a step-by-step process. That step is the standard characters for administrative work this time. 70000 characters is a little too many, but on the other hand, if there are 70000 characters, it will be within the range of design differences for family registers and will also take into consideration the identity of individuals. I think that we have overcome one mountain with this. Even so, some people may point out that the characters will change. I would like the Public Relations Working Team to think about something that can overcome the next mountain and go up the steps. If the people can agree, I think that we can create a path to unify to JIS X 0213 next. However, at present, the standard characters for administrative work are not sufficiently recognized by the people. For example, I think it would be good if a new path could be created when the fruit of the persimmon tree ripens and drops. I hope that you will gather your wisdom and think together.

Member: I'm sorry to rehash this, but basically I think most of the problems with letters are problems with names. Names are used in various places such as the Basic Resident Register, which is a local government office, but in the end they are quoted from the family register, which is a statutory entrusted office. Therefore, as a family register office, which is a statutory entrusted office, is it possible to issue a processing standard such as "Please follow the subsumption standard for names"?

I think that it is not appropriate to allow local governments to treat differences in design in accordance with the subsumption standard at the request of residents. Parents and children of the same family name may be registered in different local governments. For example, if City A follows the subsumption standard, but City B accepts it as a different character, City A will be forced to follow City B and loosen the standard. Therefore, unless it is clearly stated that this is a standard to be followed as a national rule, the standard will be loosened one after another without being observed.

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the family register, the period of transitional measure is different in the first place, and since the office work related to the identification of characters is an autonomous office work, it is difficult to formulate a processing standard in this regard under the laws and ordinances.

On the other hand, it is necessary to avoid that the identification results are different for each local government and that information cannot be coordinated. Although it is technical advice, I would like to continue to consider support methods so that it can be promoted from the viewpoint of improving the efficiency of local government affairs, including from the viewpoint of improving information coordination and convenience for residents, in accordance with the character inclusion guidelines.

Member: , whether it was mandatory. Since the items specified by the ministerial ordinance based on the Standardization Act are required, to be precise, there is no ministerial ordinance at present, so the contents of the requirement have not been decided yet. On the other hand, since the standard specifications are open to the public, local governments may assume that many of them will be made into ministerial ordinances. On that basis, the identification process would probably not be mandated. The method of identification itself is technical advice, but if it is required that the result of identification is this character, from the viewpoint of local governments, there are about 70000 characters to choose from in the standardization law indicated by the country, and it will be a matter of which one to choose. The problem is that there are transitional measures in the current standard specifications, so it is up to each local government to decide whether or not to use the transitional measures. I think there are various opinions within the local government, so you should listen carefully. As for possible opinions of local governments, the first is the opinion that the national government clearly indicates the policy and local governments explain to residents based on it. In light of this opinion, it is possible that the ministerial ordinance to be compiled in the future will eliminate the scope of discretion of local governments. The second is that each local government has a different sense of distance from residents, so they want to leave room for the discretion of the local government. If such a room for discretion of local governments is to be left, although the principle will be indicated as standardization in the ministerial ordinance, it will be written in such a way as to leave the range of discretion of local governments.

In particular, I think it is necessary to listen to the opinions of municipalities, which are basic local governments, as they are directly in charge of resident administration, through this Advisory Council and Working Team, and then to create something that everyone can understand.

Secretariat: Please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21 if you have any comments other than those I received today, including a summary of the issues regarding the operation of the standard compliance system will be administrative standard characters. As you pointed out, the process of identification, "this character is identified in A," and the inclusion criteria themselves are technical advice. For example, at present, it is unavoidable to allow a certain external character to be identified in different administrative standard characters, such as A in one local government and B in another local government. This inclusion criteria itself is not considered to be a ministerial ordinance.

Member: are also an important point, Ministry of Justice has been making efforts to reduce the number of non-conforming family registers. In addition, to speak frankly about the inside of JIS X 0213, a committee established in Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry more than 20 years ago set an upper limit on the number of characters from the beginning, and created the third and fourth levels within it. As for family names and first names, data from the NTT telephone directory was provided at that time, and characters were picked up using it as reference materials. As a result, the number of external characters decreased, but it does not mean that all characters of family names were supplemented at all. In the first place, there were more people who were not listed in the NTT telephone directory than in the population. The characters of the first name were not adopted at all because fairly strict selection standards were established, and the reality is that many characters were left out. And JIS also has an inclusion standard, which is also generally looser than the inclusion standards established in Digital Agency and Ministry of Justice, and various characters are included in one code point. It was also known during the work that the NTT telephone directory itself created and operated something like a fairly loose inclusion standard. Therefore, we tried to include many proper nouns in the characters included in JIS X 0213, but it was based on our own inclusion standard and a sample instead of a complete survey in the first place, so I think it depends on how much we can meet your expectations.

Member: If there are no other opinions, I would like to end the meeting here.

The next meeting of the Second Advisory Panel will be held at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 24.

Or more