Promotion of DX Sub-Working Group that secured Trust (11th)

Overview

Date and Time: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 (2022), from 15:00 to 16:45
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. Secretariat explanatory materials and explanation of the draft report (Secretariat)
  2. Free discussion
3. Adjournment

Materials

References

Promotion of DX Sub-Working Group Meeting to Secure Trust (PDF / 65 kb)

Relevant policies

Data Strategy

Summary of proceedings

Date

Wednesday, June 29, 2022 (2022), from 3:00 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

Location

Held online

Attendees

Members

Hiroshi Ota (Partner, Nishimura & Asahi)
Natsuhiko Sakimura (Senior Researcher, Tokyo Digital Ideas Co., Ltd.)
Kazue Sako (Professor, Department of Information Science and Engineering, School of Basic Science and Engineering, Waseda University)
Satoru Tezuka (Professor, Faculty of Environmental Information, Keio University) [Senior Researcher]
Soshi Hamaguchi (Senior Staff Member, Keio University SFC Research Institute)
Tatsuya Hayashi (Director of LocationMind Co., Ltd.)
Hiroshi Miyauchi (Attorney, Miyauchi & Mizumachi IT Law Office)
Kazuya Miyamura (Partner, PwC Arata LLC)
Makoto Takamura (Counselor to the Director-General of cybersecurity, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
Hiromasa Kiyo (Senior Assistant, Commercial Affairs Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice) *
OKUDA Shuji (Director of the cybersecurity Division, Commercial Information Policy Bureau, METI)

Observer

Satoru Ijichi (Executive Director of the time business Accreditation Center, Information and Communication security Division, The Japanese Telecommunications Association)
Takayuki Idaka (Special Advisor for medical care Information Technology, Research development Promotion Division, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Health Policy Bureau) * Attendance by proxy
Daishu Ohta (Chairman of the External Affairs Department of the Digital Trust Council)
Hirohisa Ogawa (Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Nippon Trust Technology Council and Senior Researcher, Cyber security Strategic Group, Digital Innovation Division, Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.)
Mikio Ogawa (Executive Director of Administration and Settlement Systems Department, Japanese Bankers Association)
Tetsuro Okuno (Deputy Director of the General Affairs Division, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Pharmaceutical and Environmental Health Bureau) * Attendance by proxy
OGURA Takayuki (General Manager of Corporate Sales Department, Shachihata Inc. Systems)
Seiji Kaneko (Director of the General Affairs Division, Pharmaceutical Affairs and Environmental Health Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare) * Attendance by proxy
KOMATSU Hiroaki (Partner, Tokyo IT Audit Department, KPMG AZSA LLC)
Hajime Sato I (Executive Director of the Policy Department of the New Economy Federation)
Sato Tatewaki (Cloud-based Electronic Signature Service Council Secretariat)
Koichi Shibata (Executive Director in charge of DX Service Planning Department and Chairman of the Planning and Operation Subcommittee of the Trust Service Promotion Forum, Seiko Solutions Corporation)
Kenichiro Shimai (Deputy Director of medical care Information Technology Promotion Office, Research and development Promotion Division, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Health Policy Bureau) * Attendance by proxy
SHIMAOKA Masamoto (Senior Researcher, IS Research Institute, SECOM CO., LTD.)
Kikuzo Sodeyama (Director of SKJ Sogo Tax Accountant Office)
Hajime Toyoshima Kiyoshi (DigitalBCG Japan Managing Director)
Yuji Nakasu (Vice President of Government Affairs, SAP Japan Co., Ltd.)
NAKATAKE Hiroshi (Representative of Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) Japan Office)
Akira Nishiyama (Special Member of the Electronic Certification Bureau Conference (Representative of Future Trust Lab))
Fuminori Takaoka (Supervisor, General Affairs Division, Supervisory Bureau, Financial Services Agency) * Attendance by proxy
Akihide Higo (Project Owner of the Digital Identification Project Team, Incubation Lab, Digital Architecture and Design Center (DADC), Information-Technology Promotion Agency (IPA))
Tomoaki Misawa (Partner, PwC Arata LLC)
YAMAUCHI Toru (Managing Director of the Association for the Promotion of Information Economy and Society and Director of the Digital Trust Evaluation Center)
WAKAMEDA Mitsuo (Senior Researcher, Data Strategy WG, Planning Committee, Digital Economy Promotion Committee, Japan Business Federation)

Digital Agency (Secretariat)

Masanori Digital social common function Group, Group Director, Shusaku Indo, Group Deputy Director, and others

Minutes

The Secretariat explained Material 1 "Explanatory Materials for the Secretariat."
In the open discussion, the following remarks were mainly made.
- As a confirmation of the future direction, I think that a framework to secure Trust will be constructed based on the Trust Policy, and based on that, the realization of the Trust foundation or DFFT will proceed like this. Considering this direction, I think that the general direction is that the Trust Policy will be formulated in the short term, and the framework to secure Trust and the Trust foundation will be formulated in the medium to long term.
  The title of Chapter 5 of the report in Exhibit 2 should be, for example, future efforts toward the establishment of a framework for securing Trust.
  What is important is "5.5 Promotion System" on page 39 of the report in Material 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Report"). In the short term, a Trust Policy is established and formulated, and based on it, a framework for securing Trust in the medium to long term is formulated or constructed. Therefore, this should be firmly incorporated into the short term and medium to long term of the "Promotion System".
  The Report 5.4 also states that "The Trust Policy will be examined." This activity should be included in the short-term part of the "Promotion System." The "Formulation of the Trust Policy" should also be included in the short-term part. Then, in the mid - to long-term part, the formulation of a framework to ensure Trust, or the establishment of such a framework, should be included. In the current form, it is written that the examination of DIW, etc. with international interoperability, but international interoperability is necessary for various things, not limited to Digital Identity Wallet (DIW), so I think that this should be written as a matter related to the whole. Regarding the examination of the framework, the examination of the framework including international interoperability should be written first, the arrangement of the legal system should be written second, and various important individual services should be written third.
  In addition, in both the text and the figure, "international interoperability" is written in the DIW section, but this sentence will appear in the middle of the report 5.4, so it is not necessary to write anything here. As I said earlier, international compatibility is not just for DIW, so it should be written as a whole. I would like you to correct this sentence and figure.
  Also, regarding the last paragraph on page 37 of the report, I believe that this is not a factor to be considered in the Trust Policy, but a factor to be considered in the realization of a framework to ensure Trust. This part should be rewritten from "Factors to be considered in the Trust Policy" to "Factors to be considered in the realization of a framework to ensure Trust."
  The Trust Policy is described on pages 36 and 37 of the report. I think it is very important that the definition of the Trust Policy shows the basic concept of the framework for securing Trust. I think we can proceed with discussions based on this.
  Regarding Figure 14 of the Report, the basic policies of the Trust Policy are to ensure the various conditions described here. I think that the basic policies are to formulate the Trust Policy so as to "satisfy the framework to ensure Trust." Since what is written here should be satisfied by the framework of Trust, I understand that the basic policies of the Trust Policy are to determine the Trust Policy so that the framework satisfies it. I would like it to be written here so that it can be understood.
  Then, in the explanation on page 9 of the previous page, regarding 2.3, at least the relationship between major users and major stakeholders is organized, so it should be described here.
  The first point I would like to confirm is that from the basic policies of the Trust Policy, the Trust Policy will be determined, and based on that, a framework for securing Trust will be constructed, leading to the realization of the Trust Foundation. Is it correct to understand that this is the flow of contributing to DFFT?
  Second, is it correct to understand that the Trust Policy will be formulated in a relatively short period of time, and based on that, the framework to secure Trust and the Trust foundation will be implemented in the medium to long term? If this understanding is correct, I would like to see it clearly stated.
  The third point is that the basic concept of the Trust Policy is to "formulate a Trust Policy so as to satisfy the framework for securing Trust" by securing various conditions depicted in Figure 14 of the Report. Is this understanding correct?
- This time, the basic policies of the Trust Policy have been established, but in the process of evolving the Trust Policy from the basic policies of the Trust Policy, it was decided that the Trust part of the object of "What is Trust?" discussed in this sub-working group needs to be further clarified. In addition, it became the overall direction that the Trust should be continued to be discussed on the use cases basis.
  In that case, the Secretariat understands that the concept of use cases will be clarified and the idea of Trust Policy will be deepened by multi-stakeholder discussions from Trust.
  The promotion system described in the report, various use cases are described in the short term, medium to long term, and especially in the short term. In a sense, the Secretariat believes that it is like simultaneous parallel.
- In Figure 15 of this report, where should the Trust Policy be placed? How long is the short-term or medium - to long-term assumed?
- I think it will be in the mid - to long-term, but I would like to hear the opinions and perceptions of other members. The number of years has not yet been decided, but for example, in the short-term "Promotion of the Use of Trust Services in digital completion," it is written that the intensive review and intensive reform period of the digital temporary administrative regulation is about three years, and I believe that there is a clear deadline for the reform period.
- On December 24, Priority plan stated that the "Basic Concept of the Framework for Securing Trust" and the "Trust Policy" would be compiled by the end of FY 2022. What are your thoughts on this?
- In this sub-working group, there were also discussions on the definition of the concept of Trust, and among them, the concept of Trust does not coincide, so it is difficult to completely decide on the Trust Policy. Of course, I would like to do what is written in Priority plan with that direction. In this sub-working group, since the objects of what Trust is are rapidly evolving, it is unclear to what extent the policy tailored to it can be written within fiscal 2022.
  This time, although it is in the middle of the process, I believe that the basic policies of the Trust Policy have been agreed with the members so far. Although the basic policies are a little rough, the Secretariat would like to describe them.
- Is it correct to understand that the basic policies of the Trust Policy are "to formulate the Trust Policy so as to satisfy the framework for securing the Trust" in terms of the conditions drawn in Figure 14 of the Report? If so, I would like it to be clearly written in Figure 14 of the Report and the text above the figure so that it can be understood.
- I believe that this is as defined in the Basic Policies of the Trust Policy. This is also stated in the report. What kind of framework do you envision?
- I think the framework is how Trust is certified, where and what standards are formulated, what kind of Trust services are available, and so on. Since it is a framework that secures Trust, I think it is a framework that includes all of that, including the legal system. The report of the Trust Working Team at the time of the previous report contains such a thing, and I think it will realize such a thing. I would like the "formulation of the Trust Policy" to be firmly incorporated into the "Future Policies" and "Promotion System" of the report, so that it is possible to understand how the original purpose will be achieved. I would like the Secretariat and the Chairman to discuss this.
- Priority plan for the realization of digital society, the Trust Policy in this document is regarded as the basic concept of the framework to ensure Trust (Trust Policy).
  The first point is that if this Sub-Working Group treats the Trust Policy as the basic idea of the framework to ensure Trust, in the "Consideration of the Trust Policy" on page 37 of the report, it is the idea that with the spread of Trust services, use cases will be crystallized and the elements to be considered in the Trust Policy will also be crystallized. I personally have doubts about the positioning that the Trust Policy on page 41 of the report will be crystallized in parallel with the spread of Trust services. Rather, in order to realize the appropriate spread of Trust services, it is necessary to urgently consider the Trust Policy and the basic idea of the framework to ensure Trust.
  Second, regarding future discussions in the multi-stakeholder model, I heard that organizations such as JDTF, JNSA, and JIPDEC, which are listed as stakeholder proposals in the draft report, are advancing discussions on Trust, private sector systems, technical standards and guidelines. I believe that some of these outcomes will be important inputs for discussions in the multi-stakeholder model. On the other hand, I believe that there are many group activities and deliverables that I do not understand. It is necessary to start discussions in the multi-stakeholder model so that these study results and deliverables are not wasted. To that end, I would like Digital Agency to present a rough schedule and direction for future discussions, and member recruitment, opinions, and input solicitation in some way.
  The third point is about technical standards and international standards. I think it is very important to discuss technical standards in a multi-stakeholder model, and to thoroughly examine technical standards related to Trust in Japan and the industry, rather than bringing in systems and technical standards in other countries as they are. On the other hand, it has been discussed many times in the sub-working group that it is necessary to consider the relationship between international standards and Japan's technical standards from the viewpoint of ensuring international currency and interoperability. For example, I think the basic policy is to utilize international standards that can already be referenced as discussed. On the other hand, in the process of examining technical standards in a multi-stakeholder model, international standards in the same field are proposed by ISO, and in such cases, it is necessary to cooperate with experts participating in TCs and working groups.
  Therefore, regarding the examination of technical standards in the multi-stakeholder model, the relationship between this and international standardization should be shown more clearly in the report. It is necessary to ensure consistency with international standardization in the future. In addition, I think that this will enable us to shift to aggressive standardization strategies, such as actively proposing technical standards related to Trust at the international standardization forum.
- Regarding the first comment, there are two opinions: one is that the formulation of a Trust Policy should be carried out quickly, and the other is that a specific use cases Policy cannot be formulated without specific Trust from other members, and it should be promoted in parallel with use cases. Regarding this, we would like to hear the opinions of the members in order for the Secretariat to consider how to describe it.
  Regarding the second point, the multi-stakeholder model, the structure up to this point can be written in the report, but we would like to take good care to provide information as soon as possible on what kind of schedule we can proceed with.
  Regarding the third point, the relationship with the International Standards Organization, it is a very important field, and I would like to consider how to write about the relationship of consistency with the International Standards Organization and the discussions at the International Standards Organization.
- It is true that it is better to decide quickly what kind of policy the Trust Policy will be. However, a solid use cases Policy cannot be formulated unless Trust proceeds with specific assumptions to a certain extent. It is necessary to formulate a draft Trust Policy as soon as possible to realize the short-term goals.
  Considering the concept of Trust in the mid - to long-term will be a long way off even if it is formulated now, so I believe that it must be considered after thorough discussion.
  Based on this, it is better to obtain a certain degree of consensus on what the Trust Policy should target and when it should be formulated.
  Another point is that regardless of the Trust Policy, the policy itself is a certain kind of strategy, and it is natural that it must be revised if the target and environment change. It is better to think about this method wisely, so it is better to gradually break down the "I think like this now" as a general high-level policy, and think about it in a way that considers agile governance, which the government also calls agile governance.
- It is also right to decide and do it firmly in advance, and to show a certain direction. If we push it further and further, we will see it clearly in use cases, and new parts and amendments will come out, which I think is naturally appropriate. In the current draft report, it seems that it is written that we should do it in parallel, but it would be better to write it a little more carefully. I would like the Secretariat to consider this point.
- Based on what you have said so far, we have talked about formulating a policy that includes the period before the consideration of Trust in Digital Agency. On the other hand, as a result of the new discussion of Trust in this sub-working group, we have also talked about that this is a quite difficult theme. I think the biggest story is that it is not enough to simply do it in parallel.
- When I listen to your opinions, I think it will be necessary to clarify, deepen, or elaborate the Trust Policy in both the short term and the medium to long term. However, in considering the Trust Policy in detail in the short term and the medium to long term, I would like to hear your opinions on whether the group is a multi-stakeholder.
  In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the concept of Trust is still unclear, and you commented earlier that it is difficult to make a detailed decision. Amidst this, I would like to ask what kind of decisions can be made in a short period of time.
- With regard to the current discussions on the Trust Policy, I believe that it is inevitable to take a somewhat running approach in this field, as the pace of change is very fast.
- I believe that there is more than one Trust policy. Basically, the Trust policy is the basic idea of the framework, so I think that the Trust provided in the framework is determined individually.
  From this point, if it is written in such a way that the use cases policy will not be decided unless the Trust is decided, it will sound like the policy cannot be made unless all the use cases and all the Trust related to the use cases are organized properly, but in fact, the concept of Trust may be changing rapidly. Many new services may be born. With many new use cases emerging, I think it is quite difficult to decide one Trust policy in such a situation.
  Given this situation, for example, I think it is important for the government to take the initiative in considering the necessity of Trust in administrative systems as "such a thing" as a Trust policy.
- There is one Trust policy, and I don't think it is applied to the whole and dropped from the top. This depends on whether the people who use it can be trusted after all, so I think it will be created by the customs of the industry, the business condition, or the collection of people who receive it. From this point, I think it is not The Trust Policy but Trust Policies.
  In addition, I think that DIW will have many important moves in the world in the future. In the EU, there is a tender for Digital Identity Wallet in July, and it will be open source, but we need to pay attention to this from both our government and private sector in some form, and I think it is meaningful to cover it in this report in a special way to some extent.
- On page 36 of the report, there are two paragraphs that start with "In Trust Services" and "Toward the Realization of digital society," and they describe completely different scopes. The first half is a mechanism for confirming Trust, in short, it is a discussion on how to cut the reliability of Trust services as a service, which is how much you can believe in them and how you can trust them without thinking about it. The second half is a discussion on use cases, which is how to use them and how public authorities should use them. As a result, there are three things mixed together: "How to divide the reliability of Trust services into how many types," "How to use them differently by users of Trust services," and "How to make them easy to understand for those who check services." Trust
  As for the "reliability of Trust service," Europe eIDAS has decided to divide it into three parts, Qualify, Advance and Simple, but it is a simple story of how to cut them.
  As for "how users of Trust services should use them differently," it is a question of how the government will use administrative procedures and how to describe them. According to the current state of document management in the government, it is a matter of completeness because it is Trust, but there is a rule that it should be written as Integrity 1, 2, and 3. It is a question of how much this part should be done and how much it should be communicated to the entire people.
  Finally, regarding "how to make it easy for the person who checks the Trust", if people read it, how much human-readability is expected from the person who receives it? Or if machine-readability is considered, how much detail is written? How many kinds of parameters are there? The more detail you write, the more you can do, but it is good or bad that writing and reading are troublesome.
  In any case, there are only three or four stages of discussions on how reliable Trust services are, as in Europe or as discussed in the IAL. Therefore, as a matter of decision, the mechanism of this service should be decided first. After that, I think that we cannot move forward unless we take steps to consider which use cases services should be used and how much should be secured for each Trust.
  I am very concerned that this part has been pushed into a single word, the Trust Policy, in a quite mixed form. This part is the same in terms of international currency. Regarding the mechanism for confirmation, international currency is absolutely necessary, but it is necessary to consider that international currency is not necessary for the party who introduces or confirms the name. I am very concerned that if this part is not carefully divided and considered, the discussion will be confused.
- If you try to do something too big, it will take time. So, I think it is better to take an approach that divides the scope in a realistic manner to some extent and accumulate them. Therefore, policies for electronic signature services or policies for electronic authentication, in this case, identification services, these concepts are good, but it is a little difficult to formulate them all in a unified manner.
- I think it is a good idea to take a somewhat lenient approach to Trust services, but to thoroughly consider Trust application services for each use cases. Therefore, I thought it would be reasonable to divide private sector services and Trust application services rather than the government and Trust.
- If the platform is layered and called a Trust service, the application that uses it is defined as a Trust application. The Trust application is, of course, on the application side, so it can be free. One idea is to provide an infrastructure that can be selected based on the risk depending on the application.
- I would like to ask you to clarify the Trust service and the Trust application service that I mentioned earlier. Is it correct that this means that the Trust service is provided by the provider, the Trust application is provided by the users, and there are various use cases for use?
- For example, an electronic contract system is probably a Trust application service. On the other hand, a certificate authority or a server or service that handles remote certification or the like, I think it is good to think of such a service as a Trust service. In general, the infrastructure and the service directly used by users are different, but they must be separated to some extent. If all of them are combined, it is impossible to do so in the grand unified theory.
- I wonder if the application service, not the Trust service, is equivalent to the so-called relying party function that we are talking about, if I apply it to one of the existing services. I think that not only users who use such an ecosystem but also business operators will be included, but if people understand that they are users who support the ecosystem and that they are applications, it will be connected to the next. In such a situation, the definition of the Trust service has not been firmly determined, which has an impact.
  At first, this working group examined the foundation of Trust, but due to the discussion of use cases, we discussed it from a fairly wide perspective, in a sense, from a supplementary and bird' s-eye view of the whole. I think it was necessary to have a very wide discussion. I think we can discuss it with multi-stakeholders in the phase of realizing them.
  Regarding the last sentence on page 37 of the report, I believe that the basic policies of the Trust Policy are "digital principles" for structural reforms. However, it is better to include not only structural reforms but also innovative directions. For example, the basic policies of the Trust Policy are those that support "digital principles" for structural reforms and those that support innovation such as DFFT, Society5.0, and DX. I think it would be more positive to include such wording. It is very important in innovation.
- I would like to understand the intention of confirming the Trust service. In short, I understand that it was better to make a final decision at the so-called assurance level, considering international cooperation, as a decision to be used by the government sector. Is it correct?
- To summarize the members' discussions, in the discussions we had earlier, it is necessary to consider the Trust Policy in both the short term and the medium to long term. For example, there are places where we should decide on services even in the short term. However, if we try to decide everything in the short term, like the Grand Unified Theory, we cannot decide. So, we should start from the details where we can. As for the medium to long term Trust Policy, it is not limited to one, but can be different policies in various industries. In this way, I think that the points that were discussed this time can be written in the report.
  We would like to hear your opinion if there is any inconsistency in our recognition on this point.
- In the description of the material (page 143 of the report) when we made a presentation, which is described as a reference material, the "level of measures to ensure the reliability of the issuer certificate" related to e-Seal is a description corresponding to the level classification on the Trust Service side.
  Depending on the discussion, I think that Level 3 can be divided into more detailed ones, but Level 1 meets the definition for the time being. Level 2 is guaranteed to be readable by a solid leader. Level 3 is guaranteed to be reliable in that the information on the publisher written there is correct. In short, the existence of organization, the existence of people, and identity verification, etc., are what IAL is properly done in the discussion here.
  It has been decided that the e-seal should be started by dividing it into these three parts. However, if you want a stricter one, for example, in My Number Card, a qualified local public officer has face-to-face identity verification, which is a very heavy identity verification, so it is possible to divide it based on whether you do not want to use it or if it is supported by anything.
  First of all, how to separate the parts of such a mechanism is decided, and then, depending on the type of each notification document and issue document, if you want at least this level for this document, if you think that Level 2 is insufficient, you can choose Level 3, and if Level 1 is sufficient, you can use Level 1.
  In addition, I believe that we will use all our words to explain to the validation side.
- I understood that if the division of what elements are necessary as funtionality is clarified, the subsequent movement will be easier to do.
- One important point is whether Identify Provide (IdP) can be organized in such a concept in Trust services.
  When I look at certification authorities, there is not only discussion of IAL and AAL, but also the level of the certification authority itself. Specifically, is it an accredited certification business or a specific certification business? In short, is it a systematic validation? Is it confirmed by an investigation agency or is it conducted based on voluntary standards? There is such a level. I think that IdP will need such a world in the future.
  I said this because I had a feeling that if I did not come up with another concept of Trust Service Assurance Level, everyone would choose the discussion based on it. I think it is really about the concept of how to classify the service side. We need to discuss this thoroughly in the future, and not only discuss it, but also decide what to decide and move forward. I think this is a very important part.
  How to select 1, 2, and 3 of data integrity, and how can the receiving side and the relying party validation them for verification and verification? It is meaningless unless the validation can be automated. I think we will consider a framework for Trust services like this.
  We would like to arrange with the secretariat the reflection of the opinions expressed this time in the report in the form of "Discretion of the Chief."
- I am aware that you have actively discussed the matter in the midst of great changes in the situation, and have summarized the concepts of the parts that did not go as expected. On the other hand, it is necessary to organize them urgently, so I understand that you have summarized what kind of system will be used to advance this.
  In some cases, the definition of Trust itself was difficult to determine, even though the concept of Trust was quite basic and surveys were conducted based on international standards.
  I believe that this is the flip side of the fact that discussions are being actively held not only in Japan-but also around the world, and that very active new movements are taking place in elemental technologies and in use cases.
  However, this does not mean that it is enough to hold one's finger in one's hand. Instead of quickly sorting out the technologies that are in the practical stage, such as e-SEAL, and using them safely in society, or becoming a confrontation, it is necessary for the government to quickly and firmly apply the technologies that should be applied. This is the first system that needs to be established in the future.
  At the same time, while a great number of discussions are being actively held internationally, I believe that it is increasingly important for the Government of Japan to firmly maintain its antenna, to participate in on-going discussions, rather than discussions that lag behind, and to be involved in such international discussions.
  Recently, due to the influence of big-boned people, in the description of Web3 in Priority plan, in various new applications, there are more and more immature key management as a social implementation. However, I think it is very important to do without dividing the basic concept and principles.
  It may have been a detour, but I believe that we need to take the fact that the Sub-Working Group has thoroughly discussed the idea of what should be, and that the Sub-Working Group has thoroughly discussed the group to reduce it to specific items, and that we need to take the next step as Digital Agency.
  You may have had a very frustrating time in a really fluid environment, but I would like to thank you very much for your open-minded discussion and for compiling such a wonderful report.
  We would like to ask for your continued cooperation so that we can issue a solid report to the end. This time, we are thinking of fully disclosing the report, including its English version, and we hope that this will not be a closed discussion in Digital Agency, but will be a step toward engaging in and contributing to global discussions.
The secretariat explained that the meeting materials will be published on the Digital Agency website later, that additional opinions and questions will be communicated to the secretariat and used by the secretariat as a reference for future operations, and that the minutes of the meeting will be published after the members confirm the content.

End