Address Management Working Team of the Study Group on Technical Requirements for Common function, etc. Related to Unification and Standardization of Core Business Systems for Local Governments (2nd meeting)

Last Updated:: Jan 13, 2023

Overview

Date and time: Tuesday, December 13, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location: Online Meeting
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Agenda
  1. Best Practices for Address Management Overall view of opinions and future direction
  2. Explain policy for addressing address management issues
3. Other:
4. Adjournment

Material

Relevant policy

Unification and standardization of mission-critical systems for local governments

Summary of the Proceedings

Date and

Tuesday, December 13, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

US>

Online meetings

1. Agenda (Address Management Working Team)

1. Overall picture of the best proposal opinion on address management and how to proceed in the future

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on Any comments on the content of today's review session should be submitted by the morning of Thursday, 15 December.

2. Explanation of policies for addressing issues related to address management

1.1.1. Address numbering including residents Consolidation of function and address information

Observer: The definition of . Is it only the part of the common function that uses the numbering function that will be considered as the standard optional function on the resident record system side, or is it also the numbering function in the resident record system?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on It is planned to discuss with Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications in the future, but it is only an assumption of the usage part of the numbering function in the common function. It is not planned to change the handling of the numbering function of resident address numbers that have already been defined as mandatory function in the resident record system.

Observer: The definition of What will happen to the common function if the resident record system does not select the standard option function? If the resident record system assigns a resident address number, will it be duplicated on the common function?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on As in the previous specifications, resident address numbers will be assigned by the resident record system, and non-resident address numbers will be assigned by the common function. If resident address numbers are assigned by the resident record system, it is assumed that the common function will not be used.

Members: The function to which an address number is assigned is a common function that must be implemented. Is it correct to understand that whether or not to use the function is determined based on the status of provision of standard option function on the side of the resident record system?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on As you know.

Members: Address management for non-residents Please tell us the reason why function, which assigns resident address numbers in function, is required to be implemented.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on resident record system, it was considered that it would be better not to change the number on the common function side and to always provide the function because the common function would not be able to be numbered if there was no Ban function.

Observer: The definition of address information will be carried over to after FY 2025, whether discussions will continue from FY 2023 to FY 1995, and the rough schedule and response methods.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on Among the matters discussed in this study group, those that have been arranged to be stipulated in the specifications, such as the addition of a numbering function for resident address numbers in the common function, are expected to be included in the revision at the end of this fiscal year.

Observer: The definition of Is it correct to understand that those to be addressed from FY 2023 to FY 1995 will be reflected in the current fiscal year, and those to be addressed in FY 2025 and beyond will be continuously examined?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on As you know.

Members: , is the numbering system different or is it sequential?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on The details will be explained in "2.1.2. Clarification of the Numbering Policy for Address Numbers (Registered Persons and Unregistered Persons)." However, in the case of centralized numbering, the only requirement is to make the number unique, and the implementation method should be considered by the vendor. In addition, in the case of non-centralized numbering, it is assumed that the implementation method in which the first digit is used to distinguish the numbering is specified as a reference.

Members: Noted.

Observer: The definition of that centrally assigns function address numbers. However, I think it is necessary to discuss whether it is necessary to make the common function mandatory to implement up to the resident address number assignment function. I think it is necessary to discuss whether it is a mandatory implementation function or a standard option function. In addition, it is necessary to organize in consideration of the administrative burden as to which department in the local government is responsible for the number assignment function of the common function. Furthermore, if the common function has a centralized number function, it is necessary to consider the pros and cons of the standard option function on the resident record system side corresponding to it. I would like to judge this handling at the standardization review meeting of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, which is under the jurisdiction of the resident record system standard specifications. function

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on common function should be the standard option function, as mentioned above, in order to be able to respond to the case where local governments have chosen centralized management, the handling is based on the consideration of the possibility that it will not be consistent if both function are variable. In addition, there are circumstances in which the standard option function is not specified because the common function is not in a whitelist format. Regarding the jurisdiction of the common function within local governments, we are of the same view that some measures need to be taken, and it is stated in the current standard specifications that the jurisdiction of the new function within the common function needs to be arranged within local governments. There is no objection to the discussion of the function on the resident record system side at the standardization review meeting of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and we would like to continue to discuss and coordinate.

Observer: The definition of There are cases in which address numbers are assigned in a unified manner in the current system, and we understand that this is the result of a study to maintain this correspondence.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on As you know.

1.1.2. Centralized management of non-resident address information

Members: It says, "The address information of non-residents is to be referred to base registry for address under the horizontal adjustment policy, so there will be no input fluctuation," but it should be reconsidered because it is thought that there will be fluctuation in the manual input of Ho Sho and names.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on Consideration will be made based on comments.

Observer: The definition of is collected by multiple businesses and updated individually. In addition, it is also assumed that all of the gender cannot be confirmed, such as when there is no basic four information on the driver's license. Therefore, it is considered that the reliability of information is not sufficient. It is considered necessary to consider the details of updating and matching methods of information, including the identity verification method of each business.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on Basically, it is considered that registration will be made based on the information heard in each service. In addition, it is considered desirable that the operation can be organized, but it is considered difficult to make provisions based on the fact that it extends across each function.

Observer: The definition of , it is either the address on the resident record or the address of the evacuation destination.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on Since it depends on the nature of each business, it has not been clearly specified at this time, but we will consider it again in light of other suggestions.

1.1.4. Integrated management of information on non-residents eligible for support measures

Observer: The definition of With regard to the management of persons subject to support measures, information on residents is handled by the department that maintains the Basic Resident Register in each municipality. How is data linkage envisaged when information on non-residents is used in other municipalities?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on The centralized management of support measure information is intended for data management within the local government and is not assumed to be linked with other local governments. In addition, the assumption of linkage when support measure information for non-residents is managed by an address management system is being examined in a separate sub-issue.

Observer: The definition of It is understood that currently there are no plans to provide information on support measures for non-residents to other municipalities. However, as there may be use cases where information is passed on to perpetrators via other municipalities, cooperation between municipalities should also be considered.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on We are aware of the fact that there are use cases in which opinions were given, and we would like to consider it in the future.

Members: The Information on Persons Subject to Support Measures is supposed to be managed by each core business system. However, what does it mean by "it is assumed that it will be used by direct input, etc. when it is managed by an address management system because it is not information that can be retained by each core business system"?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on This is a clerical error. It is a clerical error in the information in the application form, not in the information on the Persons Eligible for Support Measures. Although the core business system recognizes that the information on the Persons Eligible for Support Measures can be linked from the resident record system, it recognizes that the information in the application form is not linked from the resident record system. This description was based on the assumption that the same items are held in the address management system, but it is corrected because there is a possibility of misunderstanding.

Members: Noted.

Observer: The definition of According to the policy for this sub-issue, support information for women, children, and other non-residents who need support has been managed by each core business system. Does this mean that support information will be managed centrally by the address management system? If so, is it consistent based on various systems?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on This does not mean that centralized management is essential. Management by each core business system is the rule as before, but this shows the arrangement in the case of having an address management system when a local government decides to implement centralized management.

Observer: The definition of First of all, as an institutional theory, it is desirable to consider how to manage the information of non-residents who are subject to support measures, and then to consider how to manage it on the system. If it is managed by the address management system, there will be a department in the local government that manages the information of non-residents who are subject to support measures, and the management department will be responsible for it. Therefore, it is necessary to consider it including each ministry and agency.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on systems. We will consider whether it is possible to consider revising the specifications at the end of fiscal 2022 and whether it should be considered after the transition support period.

Observer: The definition of Assigning an address number in a unified manner would mean that personal information would be linked within the agency. However, there are information that should not be linked between services and information that can be linked. We think that they should be discussed separately. In this sub-issue, we focus on the latter and consider the former separately.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on As stated in the comments, this report covers information that can be linked.

1.2.3. Making function for management of non-resident address numbers optional

Members: Alien Address Number Management function is an independent new system? Also, is it necessary to introduce this system when registering alien residents in standard compliance system? In that case, it will be organized that Alien Address Number Management function will be essential for standardizing each business system. If the specifications are scheduled to be revised at the end of FY 2022, there is a possibility of halation on the local government side. I would like you to make adjustments and consider including this point.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on As you know, it is necessary for each local government to establish it, and when registering a non-resident in standard compliance system, it is necessary to use the non-resident address number management function. We will consider it based on the findings.

2.1.1. Clarification of the division of roles and operational flow, including the address management system, and provision of linkage specifications

Members: National Health Insurance, long-term care, etc. through in-house cooperation, it is assumed that the credential information of non-residents such as domicile exception for elderly staying in nursing care facility will be linked. Therefore, it is necessary to link the address information of non-residents such as domicile exception for elderly staying in nursing care facility to the core business system in advance. How do you expect to respond after standardization?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on and function.

Members: At present, it is recognized that it is not specified. Therefore, it is requested to consider including the uniform introduction of the address information of function for managing the address number of non-residents into the core business system.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on Noted.

2.1.2. Clarification of the policy for assignment of address numbers (registered and unregistered)

Members: It says, "Distinguish by the first digit of the address number", but since there are 20 core business systems, it is considered that the first two digits are necessary to distinguish them. Also, where is the "resident classification (tentative)" expected to be added?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on business and it is sufficient if it can distinguish between residents and non-residents. In addition, "Resident classification (tentative)" is assumed to be added to the item definition document of the function for managing the address number of non-residents.

Members: Noted.

2.1.5. Clarification of Exclusive Control and Release Specifications

Members: Regarding the specification that "after forced release of exclusive control, the core operation system that has acquired exclusive control is not allowed to continue update processing," it is not possible to imagine how it would be implemented. Therefore, it is requested that supplemental information such as sequences be added when incorporating it into the standard specifications.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on Noted.

2.1.6. Non-resident address number management: Whether or not specifications for history management in function should be stipulated

Observer: The definition of history management as identification information, including basic four information residence information. However, there is a possibility that residential addresses will be overwritten with residence information, so isn't there a problem with updating the basic four information master each time?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on , so it is necessary to organize them. For the time being, however, they will be managed by keeping their histories.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on address information, if there is any information other than residence information and address information, please provide it.

Observer: The definition of residence is vague. I don't think there is any need to discard the residence information at the time of name identification.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on .

2.2.8. Confirmation of the Method of Entering Foreign Names

Members: We request the CFTC to consider the current input rules as they are not sufficient to control input fluctuation.

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on 's opinion.

Full

Members: Is it correct to understand that the issues of "3. Confirmation of the policy of merging and transferring names of non-residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of Document 2 were not taken up because there were few dissenting opinions?

Secretariat: We will closely examine it based on As you know.

2. Other

No particular discussion

Greater than or