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 ".

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

Overview

  • Date: Monday, March 24, 2025 (2025), from 15:00 to 17:00
  • Location: Sabo Hall and online conference
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Agenda
      1. Matters to be reported by each working team
      2. Survey on the status of each local government concerning character requirements and character identification
      3. Exchange of views
    3. Closing

Material

Related policy

Summary of proceedings

Date

  • March 24, 2025 (Monday, 2025) 15:00 to 17:00

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, digital infrastructure Promotion Office, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications) * Absent
  • 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

  1. Matters to be reported by each working team
  2. Survey on the status of each local government concerning character requirements and character identification
  3. Exchange of views

Handout

  • Appendix 1: Matters reported by each working team
  • Survey on the status of each local government concerning the two character requirement and character identification
  • Appendix 3: Outline of the Advisory Council on Standardization of Characters in Local Government Information Systems
  • Appendix 4 Establishment and operation of the Public Relations Working Team, the Expert Working Team, and the Character Identification Working Team
  • Separate draft of publicity materials
  • Data submitted by members Status of character identification in Kobe City and opinions from the Residents Division

Business

  • At the second meeting of the Committee, the secretariat and members explained the matters reported by each working team.
  • The secretariat gave an explanation on the "Character Requirements and Character Identification Survey by Local Governments", and the members gave an explanation on the "Character Identification Situation in Kobe City and Opinions from the Residents Section".

Question

Members: This time, even in the materials provided by the members, specific information such as an example of the character "To" was presented, and it was very easy to understand.

There was an explanation about the registration data, but I think that what we can learn from Material 2, Situation Survey of Local Governments, is that the purpose is to identify characters from the viewpoint of how local governments can improve the efficiency of clerical work in the resident record system. Registration is a clerical work under the jurisdiction of the national government, but I was wondering how the characters of names and names (of corporations, etc.) used in the tax field are handled. There are national taxes and resident taxes, and local taxes are also related to the improvement of clerical work efficiency of local governments, so I would like to ask how the characters related to taxes are handled.

The question of how the characters in your name will change is of great interest to residents whose names will change. Naturally, there will be some opposition to changing the characters in your name. The important thing is that the characters in your name on the family register will not change. In the standardization of characters, characters are somewhat special in design, and even if you have feelings for them, they will be identified in a form that is easier to process in order to improve the efficiency of administrative work. It is important to publicize to the public that "the characters in the family register will not change, but the use of standard characters for administrative work is to improve the efficiency of administrative work." Therefore, I feel that it is enough to properly convey to the public that "the characters in your real name will not change." I would also like to confirm again that "the characters in the family register will not change."

Secretariat: In response to the first question, the Expert Working Group discussed the tax field, which is described on page 11 of Appendix 1. As tax matters, including property tax and corporation tax, have an impact on local governments, we received an opinion that it should be discussed in coordination with local governments, and the impact on national taxes will be discussed separately.

In response to the second question, members of the Public Relations Working Team also expressed their opinions. In the third point of the summary of opinions on page 4 of the handout, there was an opinion that "the message that there will be no change in the family register should be clearly conveyed," and this was reflected in the leaflet of the attached draft of the public relations materials.

Members: Supplementary Family Register?

Secretariat: Household Registration and Supplementary Family Register System.

Members: national tax and local tax. On page 3 of the survey in Appendix 2, the "method of managing characters" includes the basic resident register, national pension, elections, national health insurance, child allowances, school attendance, family registers, and seals. The resident tax is not written separately, but is it included somewhere?

Secretariat: Local Taxes, to be specific, local inhabitant taxes and fixed property taxes, etc., are listed as a list of applicable business systems at the bottom of the back page of the attached leaflet for public relations materials. It is stated that the subject of this local government system standardization includes administrative work related to local inhabitant taxes and fixed property taxes, etc.

I understand that the purpose of your question is that the character standard will be unified in local taxes, but what will happen in national taxes under the jurisdiction of National Tax Agency, national pensions, employees' pensions, and other national affairs? This unification of the character standard is based on the "Act on Standardization of Local Government Information Systems," and the first objective is to unify the character standard in the standardization of local government systems.

On the other hand, there is no clear policy on national taxes, employees' pensions, and other affairs under the jurisdiction of the national government.

Therefore, at present, the unification of character standards is being promoted in the standardization of local government systems.

Members: In the earlier discussion on registration, it was mentioned that "fixed asset tax is involved," but I understood that this initiative does not include the affairs of the national government, and that it is proceeding with measures within the scope of affairs under the jurisdiction of local governments.

Members: municipalities is settled, there is a possibility that residents will raise questions if characters different from those used in municipalities are used in notifications from the national government, etc. I felt that this point was a very important theme.

I understood that the expression "for the time being" in the part "the characters in the family register will not change for the time being" means that "there is a transitional measure." It may be correct for the administration to write "for the time being," but "for the time being" is likely to be a considerably long period. I felt that "for the time being" could be strengthened to "will not change for a while."

Members: Public Relations Working Group, it was pointed out that "it should be easy for local government officials to understand," and this is a very important point of view. I myself have experience working in the department in charge of the Basic Resident Register, and I can understand it well from the viewpoint of the field. In the past, there were many veteran local government officials who had 20 or 30 years of experience in one department, but now it is difficult to engage in only specific clerical work due to personnel changes in a short period of time, and the number of officials who can stay in one section for a long period of time is decreasing. Therefore, it is difficult to maintain and pass on know-how depending on the knowledge of specific officials, and easy-to-understand materials for newly assigned officials are becoming more important.

From my own experience, I felt that the "Concept of the Resident Division" on page 3 of the materials provided by the members was very relevant. The computerization of the family register and the computerization of the Basic Resident Register have not always been linked and have been carried out separately at different times. In addition, there are many residents whose registered domicile and place of residence are different, so the linkage between the family register and the resident register has not been sufficiently promoted, and it should be noted again that the two are not always at the same level.

Furthermore, in the 1955 s, before the computerization of family registers, Japanese typewriters were widely used in order to print hand-written family registers. In some cases, characters were replaced in the process, so if you go back to old hand-written family registers, there is a possibility that they do not match the characters used today.

In this way, the "fluctuation" of past characters may become more apparent as computer collation advances in the future, and I believe that this point should be fully considered in future responses.

Page 5 of Appendix 2 shows the "Average Number of External Characters in the Resident Record System." Looking at this, it can be seen that there are many in "Ordinance-Designated Cities" and few in "Towns and Villages." The number of residents registered as their place of residence or registered domicile also varies greatly, so it is necessary to consider what the "national average: 2,207 characters" means. Page 8 maps the "Character Identification Completion Rate" by prefecture, and while many prefectures are 0%, there are some prefectures with completion rates as high as 40%. It is possible that these regional differences are not just variations, so I felt that it is worth digging into and sorting out what they mean. In particular, looking at the "Character Identification Rate Adjusted with Vendors" on page 9, the response status varies considerably from region to region, and I would like to confirm whether it is meaningful to dig into the causes.

Members: survey results among prefectures may be due in part to differences in vendor responses, but I would like to ask the secretariat if it has any analysis or consideration.

Secretariat: With regard to the first point, materials for local government officials, we would like to proceed while paying attention to the fact that it is difficult to pass on know-how due to personnel changes, etc., and prepare them according to the level of understanding.

Regarding the second point, the proposal on page 3 of the materials provided by the members, I think that Proposal 1 is going to be Proposal 2 because it goes back to the discussions that have been conducted by the Study Group and the Advisory Council. However, as described in Material 1 as a matter for continued study by the Expert Working Team, I would like to closely examine the impact on the person and the relevant ministries and agencies due to the difference in font between the family register and the copy of the certificate of residence in cooperation with the relevant ministries and agencies in the future.

Regarding the third point, when we interviewed several local governments, we found that the criteria for determining the extent to which responses were regarded as having been adjusted differed, and this was one of the factors that caused differences in the results of the survey by prefecture. We are currently considering how to provide feedback on the results of the survey and analysis by prefecture.

Secretariat: members, it is understood that it is a problem that has a great influence on the local governments that interviewed about public relations.

If all the Fuji characters are treated as Gaiji, there are about 700,000 characters used in the family register, which is the parameter, so it will be inclined to increase a considerable number of Gaiji. There is a risk that it will not be consistent with the direction of unifying the standard characters for administrative affairs. It is also a very annoying problem that it may lead to an expansion of the argument that if this character is allowed, that character will also be allowed.

On the other hand, as shown in the materials provided by the members, it is also valuable to hear the opinion of the local government, "Since the family register has been handled separately so far, if we do not take certain measures, problems may arise with the residents." There is no way to solve the problem unless we clarify the actual situation in the local government regarding the handling of the character "To" in the family register and the number of cases. It cannot be solved simply by arguing that "it can be identified because the design is the same, or it cannot be identified." We will coordinate our future policies with Ministry of Justice based on the opinions raised by the local government.

Members: In terms of public relations, it is certainly important to promote the policy of "standardizing characters in administrative affairs and procedures." However, people do not live only in the world of administrative affairs, and there are many situations in which names are used in general social life, for example, in various private procedures such as financial institutions.

In response to the question, "Is it OK for administrative affairs and the private sector to handle names differently?", I think, "It would be healthier if they were the same." In an age where characters used in people's names are exchanged through information processing systems and the Internet, we must consider how to think about it and expand the discussion at some point.

Appendix 2: It seems to be true that there may have been differences in the perceptions and views of each local government when they responded to the survey. First of all, it is meaningful to compile this material as a material to understand the actual situation in which such differences occur. However, whether the survey results with different perceptions are good or not is another matter, and it is desirable that "the responses should be arranged after unifying the response criteria". We hope that it will be arranged in future consideration.

With regard to the materials provided by members, I believe that the idea of Proposal 1 is a matter of course based on proper standards and laws, while Proposal 2 agrees with the proposal that the rules should be clarified.

Secretariat: In terms of the relationship with the private sector, it is a problem how to promote policies that will spread to the private sector as administrative standard characters are adopted by local governments. Although there were discussions at the first Advisory Council, there were discussions on whether "administrative standard characters" are acceptable as a character standard to be unified in the long term in the first place. Some pointed out that the number of characters should be further reduced because there are still too many administrative standard characters to enable centralized business processing in computers and various fields like smartphones. At present, administrative standard characters are considered to be a big mountain in one character standard unification, but it is a problem how to organize other fields and long-term character standard unification after climbing this mountain. In doing so, it is recognized as a problem that it is necessary to sufficiently consider the actual situation of private sector handling business and convenience for users.

Secretariat: In particular, I would like to supplement the previous explanation on "relations with the private sector."

For example, the school age book is currently included in the 20 tasks subject to standardization, but the related school affairs information system is not included. Some people say that they "want to use" it, but they recognize that there are many difficult technical issues that remain in order to make it possible to use the current administrative affairs standard characters outside the administration, such as in the private sector. However, as we discuss the international standardization of administrative affairs standard characters, if the environment is ready, the possibility of expanding it to the private sector should not be ruled out.

On the other hand, the characters developed by the Character Information Platform have already been internationally standardized by ISO and can be freely downloaded by the public. However, it cannot be said that the environment for using the input method of about 60000 characters has been established at present, and there is a reality that "characters cannot be used simply by distributing them to the public."

Recently, it was reported that the IPAmj Mingcho font was included in ChromeOS as a standard, but if the resources necessary for international standardization are properly provided to the world, the usage environment will be gradually improved, so I think it is necessary to consider comprehensively while looking at such needs.

It is technically possible to handle administrative standard characters with a smartphone or other computer, but simply making it possible to handle them may cause confusion, so I would appreciate it very much if you could continue to discuss it.

Members: I felt that the content you just explained needs to be incorporated into the so-called advanced discussion after the ongoing discussion, such as "development not only within the administration but also to the private sector", "how to use it in the private sector", and "issues for international standardization".

Members: The character' To,' which was mentioned as a concrete example, was the most widely used character after' Ta' among Japanese family names. There are many strokes, and opinions about the fluctuation of the style are expected to come out in various ways.

It was also reported that a few years ago, when a local government digitized the juki or koseki, it mistakenly unified the "so" and "hachi (ha)" forms of "to" into the "hachi" form of characters, and was forced to deal with it. The character "to", which sometimes happens like this, is one of the characters that will need to be handled carefully in the future.

In the materials provided by the members, it was handled very carefully, and regarding the character of' To', it is said that three points are important for identification: whether the Sokan is separated, whether the part in the moon is a slanting Funazuki, and what the part of So and Hachi is like. It can be seen that not all combinations of these three points are allowed when looking at the unified family register characters.

In the materials provided by the members of the city, it is clear that the characters that are not in the unified family register characters or the standard administrative characters, but are like a normal month and are open like eight, are also computerized in the family register. I think this is one of the points of future thinking. The handling of such characters that have already been computerized in the family register but are not in the unified family register characters or the standard administrative characters must be discussed in the future.

In other words, while the government explains that' the characters in the family register do not change,' there are a certain number of residents who are actually registered in the family register in a special style or shape. However, it is necessary to argue on the basis of statistical data as the argument without the basis of figures is not persuasive because the scope of the influence is unknown.

The character' To' was adopted as a commonly used Chinese character in 2010, and became a notice and instruction issued by the Cabinet Office as a Chinese character policy and Japanese language policy in Cultural Affairs Agency and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and it is also related to all ministries and agencies, and it has a characteristic that it does not have much compulsory power for proper nouns.

The list of Kanji for common use's guidelines on character styles and forms can be read as indicating that' making So like Hachi is not a difference in design' for To. Therefore, some characters registered in family registers listed in the materials provided by members may have to be recognized as old characters when they are asserted to be old characters. In short, it is considered that it will be a very complicated problem when the user asserts that' it is not a difference in design but a difference in character style' and the case goes to court.

The problem of such characters is inherent in the mechanism of Chinese characters itself, and it is always a matter of concern. In order to ensure that there is no variation in treatment across the country, it will be necessary to consider how to respond at least within this Advisory Council. It will also be necessary to discuss which working group will consider it, but first of all, I would like to ask you to think about it as an issue.

Members: figures. You also pointed out that it is necessary to ensure that there is no variation in treatment across the country. Please provide comments from the secretariat on this point.

Secretariat: characters are one of the important factors in the study. However, since Digital Agency does not have such information, we would like to ask for the cooperation of Ministry of Justice. We would like to share the number of characters in family registers. A working team for character identification will be established, and the issue of non-conforming family registers will be discussed first. However, the procedure manual for character identification states that characters that are "not non-conforming family registers but difficult to identify" will also be studied in the future. If there is no standard, "I want to use that character and this character as external characters," and the very foundation of the policy of creating and unifying character standards for administrative office characters will collapse. We must think carefully so that such a thing does not happen.

Members: , the Public Relations Working Team discussed the issue after receiving figures from local governments that are far from each other in the east and west. If we estimate from the figures, there are tens of thousands of people subject to the issue across the country. There are probably no other cases like this, so I think it would be okay to treat it differently. Since the way of public relations changes when there are a certain number of people subject to the issue, local governments should consider discussing "Fuji" as soon as possible in the newly established Character Identification Working Team.

In addition, the progress rate of identification work in the situation awareness survey shown in Material 2 seems to vary not only by prefecture but also within prefectures. As there is considerable variation even in Kyoto Prefecture, where prefectures are coordinating between municipalities and vendors, responses may differ even among municipalities that are actually working in the same way. Since it may be possible to accurately grasp the situation by conducting vendor hearings and briefing sessions, we would like to see flexible consideration of the survey method.

Members: We received two opinions. Since "Fuji" affects many people and it is highly possible that it is a special character, we proposed that we should discuss it at an early stage. Second, regarding the progress rate, we proposed that we hold a hearing and briefing session because it is better to collect information from the vendor side, support it, and analyze it.

Secretariat: , we would like to ask Ministry of Justice to cooperate in the fact-finding survey. As you pointed out, it is clear from the opinions of each local government that the range of influence is wide, so we would like to discuss it as soon as possible.

Regarding the second point, it is quite possible that the local government did not fully understand the purpose of the question when answering the questionnaire. We would like to share it with vendors and others to grasp the actual situation. It may be pointed out from a different viewpoint from the local government.

Members: Based on today's various materials, I assume that there have been various discussions in the Public Relations Working Team and the Specialized Working Team. I would like to thank you for your response.

First, regarding public relations, each local government will fully shift to a standardized system in FY 2025, and the standard characters for administrative work will be actually used and will be seen by residents. Therefore, please indicate when public relations materials will be provided. Since there will be various problems with public relations materials after the first round is distributed to local governments, it is desirable to improve and update them each time.

Second, with regard to the difference in characters between a copy of a resident's certificate and a family register, in local government affairs, for example, when a resident moves in, if there are no characters in the Resident Record System, the simplified characters that exist in the Resident Record System, not the characters in the family register, are sometimes registered. I think that similar treatment has probably occurred in local government affairs nationwide. When a resident moves out, if the characters are included in the certificate of moving out, the simplified characters are also used in the place where the resident moved in. In such a case, please tell us whether the characters in the copy of the resident's certificate are identified as the Standard Characters for Administrative Affairs in the process of identification as the Standard Characters for Administrative Affairs, or whether there is a case where "the characters in the family register and the copy of the resident's certificate are made the same and then identified as the Standard Characters for Administrative Affairs."

Third, I think there is an argument that Page 3, Plan 2 of the materials provided by members may be disadvantageous to the person concerned to some extent. In such a case, I would like you to provide a certain level of evidence.

Secretariat: , we are considering including QR codes for the Digital Agency website in public information materials. The website is currently under development and public information materials will also be available after completion. We would like to make it available to local governments as soon as possible.

The second point is about the difference in characters between the family register and the copy of the certificate of residence. I would like to share with the relevant ministries and agencies that it is necessary to fully discuss whether there is a difference in design in character identification, whether the font will also change, and what kind of impact it will have if such parts are replaced. On the other hand, I recognize that it is important to discuss after thoroughly investigating the scope of impact.

As for the third point, I think that it is written in the materials provided by the members after understanding the actual situation, but there is a limit because it is an autonomous administration. Therefore, I am very sorry, but at the first meeting of the Advisory Council, it was presented in the form of technical advice. On the other hand, as for the opinions of the local governments, I think that it was proposed again today that "It will be a problem if it is not decided by the government." While gathering wisdom on what kind of method is good, I cannot draw a conclusion on whether to do it with Plan 1 or Plan 2 yet, but if it is done with Plan 2, I think that it is necessary to sufficiently examine what kind of method is available.

Members: First, I would like to add a little about the current situation on page 3 of the material provided by the members.

In the Japanese legal system, it is a major premise that the name of a Japanese person is determined by the family register. Since the name is used for various administrative affairs, the name on the family register is written on the copy of the resident's card, the resident's tax, and the national pension. Therefore, it is a matter of course that the same name as the family register is used. In the past discussions, the interpretation of the Basic Resident Register Law has been that "the same name" means "the same character style." In other words, the conventional interpretation has been that the same character is used even if the character style is different, and there is no particular understanding that this caused a problem. In the practice of each local government, if there is a problem due to a different character style, it may be dealt with by matching the character style. This time, character identification along with standardization changes the character style. Since the character style does not change even if the character style changes, it is within the range originally allowed by the concept of the Basic Resident Register. It seems that there is room for discussion whether the character of "To" is a difference in the character style or the character style. I think it depends on the result of the discussion, but if it is judged that it is a difference in the character style, it is as usual that "it does not matter whether the character style is different between the family register and the resident's base."

According to the materials provided by the members, Proposal 1 originally allowed the creation of Gaiji, so Gaiji can be created for family registers without a transitional period. Based on the current standard specifications, if a person wants to keep a character that is not in the standard characters for administrative work as a gaiji, it is possible to do so in the family register, but in the Juki, there is a certain period of time, although there is a transitional measure, so it must be changed to the standard characters for administrative work eventually. At some point, the family register and the Juki will change characters, but for the time being, there is room for both to create external characters, so I think there will be at least a five year grace period. As for Plan 2, since it is not necessary to match characters in the first place if the shapes are different, they may be matched or not. As for what to do if the characters are different, I think it is clear that the story on the non-conforming family register on page 4 of the material provided by the members is probably a difference in characters. As for whether it is OK to change the font when the font is different, the interpretation so far has indicated that the font should be matched. The important thing is to discuss with digitalisation whether it is an argument that "it is OK because it has been confirmed that residents will not be troubled even if the family register and the Juki are different," or "it is something that has an impact but must be done for the sake of Digital Agency, so it will be done after explaining it well to residents and getting their consent." If it is acceptable to use different fonts, I personally think that a certain level of legal basis is necessary at this point. According to the current standard specifications, family registers are allowed to use the same characters as those used in the past, but the system will be linked by using standard characters for administrative work. If this is done, the characters in the family register will eventually become the standard characters for administrative work when they are linked, and the resident base who received them will become the standard characters for administrative work. If this is written in a ministerial ordinance to be established in the future, this part will become mandatory. Therefore, if such a thing is done in the context of digitalisation and standardization, "There will be a part where the character style changes between the family register and the resident register. However, it is limited to family registers that do not conform to the revised law. " It does not mean that there is no room to revise the current standard specification from the current version 4.1, and the ministerial ordinance will be made in the future. To this end, the ministries and agencies concerned should coordinate their views on how and by when to draw up the ministerial ordinance, taking into account discussions at the panel.

I have some questions about page 16 of Appendix 2. By the end of fiscal 2025, only 27% of the population would have switched to standard characters for administrative work, which I feel is a very small percentage. This is probably because only local governments that do not use transitional measures were counted. Since local governments that use transitional measures also answered that they would identify characters in this document, it seems to mean that "characters will be identified but external characters will also be kept as a transitional measure." The question is whether this should be treated as "groups that use transitional measures have not been able to switch to standard characters for administrative work" or "groups that have switched to standard characters for administrative work but have partially used transitional measures to retain external characters." How should the government recognize this? Since this document states that transitional measures will be used but characters will be identified, doesn't the definition mean that the transition to standard characters for administrative work will be made even if there is a transitional measure? Isn't there room for consideration as to how this document should be expressed?

According to the data, there are not many local governments that have already completed character identification, but there are quite a few. On page 7, 78 local governments answered that they have completed character identification and that they will not use transitional measures. It is questionable whether all of these 78 local governments have been able to identify characters, or whether they have changed the font to make them the standard characters for administrative work. In that case, what kind of arrangement is it?

The handling of characters in non-conforming family registers remains the most vexing problem. There are three options. The first option is to match the characters in the non-conforming family registers with the basic characters, at least for the time being. The second option is to make the basic characters the standard characters for administrative work. The third option is to use this time as an opportunity to explain to the person in question and then change the characters in the non-conforming family registers to the standard characters for administrative work. Even in Ministry of Justice, efforts have been made to eliminate the non-conforming family registers themselves, and they said at the last working session that they would continue the work in the future. Since it is the most ideal that the characters in non-conforming family registers become the standard characters for administrative work, it is desirable that it can be realized through cooperation among related ministries and agencies.

Members: The first point you made was on page 16 of Handout 2. It is true that 27% of the population is indicated in the Standard Characters for Administrative Work on the Copy of the Certificate of Residence. You may be wondering about this. The second point is on page 7. What are the details of the 78 local governments that have completed the identification of characters and do not apply transitional measures? The third point was that there may be an option to make the characters in the non-conforming family register into the Standard Characters for Administrative Work after explaining and obtaining approval. I would like to ask for comments from the secretariat.

Secretariat: Regarding the first point, on page 16, it is described as "the percentage of the population that is scheduled to be converted to standard characters for administrative work by FY 2025." However, what I wanted to say here is not the conversion, but "the percentage of the population that is scheduled to be replaced by the end of FY 2025." Therefore, I would like to review the content of the document in light of your comment.

Regarding the second point, regarding the local governments that have completed the transition without applying the transitional measures on page 7, since it is still a preliminary report, we have not been able to fully investigate the actual situation of each local government. I would like to confirm the situation with local governments in the future. The expert working team also discussed non-conforming family registers, but there are really various kinds of non-conforming family registers. It does not seem to be a matter of doing this or not doing this because they are non-conforming family registers. There is a possibility that various options will emerge, so I would like to consider how to organize them while looking at the notification (actual) of the characters used in non-conforming family registers.

Members: PR materials, can't you organize the Digital Agency plan a little better? The plan presented by the members is easier to understand. As an example, regardless of whether the character "To" is good or not, the members' plan illustrates that there are various characters. On top of the many "To" on the left side, I think it is better to write firmly that "This is a character in the family register and it is the same as before." On the other hand, the character "To" on the right side, which will be replaced, is better to show that "It will be used for notices and certificates, etc." at the beginning.

The legal basis is important for public relations aimed at those who actually change characters, but I would like to see a little more information on the scope of the impact. It would be kind if I could give some examples of what could happen, such as "There may be a problem with different characters in diplomas or bank accounts." It would also be good if there were an explanation that would help people to be prepared, such as "If such a problem occurs, please take such measures."

It is important to explain in the materials whether it is good to tell the local government or the Digital Agency, and where the window is, etc., when a resident has a problem with characters.

There are many things I want to explain and need to explain, such as "What are the standard characters for administrative work?" First of all, I think it would be good to put forward a message saying, "What kind of influence can it have on you? If you are in trouble, please come here."

Secretariat: PR materials will be examined to see if they can be expressed in a more easy-to-understand form. The ministries and agencies concerned are currently coordinating the scope of the impact. If it is not in time to provide this PR material, information will be provided on the website.

Secretariat: Secretariat, the working team raised specific examples of financial institutions, driving licenses, and schools in identity verification. Therefore, Digital Agency is making inquiries to relevant ministries and agencies such as National Police Agency and Financial Services Agency to understand the impact. It is necessary to proceed so that there is no impact, and we would like to consider issuing an administrative notice to each ministry and agency to ask relevant organizations to make it known. At present, we are confirming the future of identity verification by analog. However, as My Number Card is also spreading, how to ensure the authenticity of the person is considered as a future consideration.

Members: In relation to what I just said, I thought that it would be difficult to draw a conclusion on whether the content of the public relations would be good or not without carefully examining what kind of impact the change of characters would have and whether it would be possible to appropriately deal with it.

Members: This concludes the exchange of views. Members, thank you for your valuable comments. Finally, please let me know if there are any communications from the secretariat.

Secretariat: Thank you very much for your time today. We are considering holding the next meeting of the Advisory Panel around June or July, and would like to inform you of the date of the meeting after coordinating the schedule.

Members: Now, I would like to conclude today's meeting. Thank you very much, everyone.

Or more