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 ".

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

Overview

  • Date and time: Thursday, November 18, 2021 (2021) from 12:00 to 13:30
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. About the Promotion of DX Sub-Working Group that secured Trust
      2. Outline of the Trust Actual Condition Survey
      3. Presentations from external experts
        • Hiroaki Komatsu (KPMG AZSA LLC)
        • Kikuzo Sodeyama (SKJ Sogo Tax Accountant Office)
        • NAKATAKE Hiroshi (Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation)
      4. The Big Picture of Trust
        • Satoru Tezuka (Professor, Faculty of Environment and Information Science, Keio University)
      5. Free discussion
    3. Adjournment

Materials

References

Relevant policies

Summary of proceedings

Date

Thursday, November 18, 2021 (2021), from 12:00 to 13:30

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)
  • Tatsuo SHINOHARA (Director of the Commercial Affairs Division, Civil Affairs Bureau
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • OGURA Takayuki (General Manager of Corporate Sales Department, Shachihata Inc. Systems)
  • 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)
  • 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))
  • Eiji Nozaki (Director of the General Affairs Division, Supervisory Bureau, Financial Services Agency
  • 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 "Promotion of DX Sub-Working Group that Secured Trust".
  • Presentations by external experts on the needs and Trust of Issue services in DX are made in Material 2 "Needs and Trust of Issue Services in Corporate Business Process Innovation and DX Implementation of Auditing Services", Material 3 "Issue of DX Implementation of Tax-related Services", and Material 4 "E-Certificate Needs and Issue".
  • In addition, Chief Researcher Tezuka explained Material 5 "The Whole Image of Trust in the Promotion of DX SWG that Secured Trust".
  • In the open discussion, the following remarks were mainly made.
    • In considering Trust levels, the assurance levels of Trust services and IDs are very important, but in addition, information generated based on these, such as the levels of E-Certificate and timestamp tokens, should also be considered.
    • From the perspective of currency, in public procedures, there are cases in which individual standards are determined for each procedure, and it may be better to consider unified standards. In private sector transactions, it should be considered necessary to show the correspondence between the classification of services and the method of use. In relations with foreign countries, it is considered that showing the Japanese framework will be useful for cooperation with foreign countries.
    • It is important to show the effectiveness of Trust services and information in lawsuits. If a simple and clear structure is shown when a case is brought to court, it may be possible to use it with a sense of security.
    • The design of incentives is important. It is necessary to examine what incentives are necessary to promote the spread of Trust services in business procedures. In addition, technologies that are not accepted by the field are difficult to spread, so it is necessary to consider the usability and usability of Trust services as a set.
    • What can be used in internal controls and technology is different between a recently established company and a company with a long history. I think it is necessary to show the driving factors for each business category. At the same time, I think that the barriers to the introduction of Trust services can be lowered by presenting the assurance level, which is important.
    • In international cooperation, international standards and the like will also be a topic of discussion, but it will be necessary to consider the situation not only in the EU, where legal systems are in place, but also in the United States, and to establish a system that can ensure interoperability with a variety of countries.
    • The concept of assurance level is important. It is necessary to consider from the discussion of what kind of level is necessary for what.
    • We need to think about what kind of DFFT is required by the vision of Trust and comprehensive data strategy.
    • From the perspective of data utilization, in addition to reliable operation of Trust services, data reliability should also be considered.
    • It is important to respond to SMEs. In the case of poor UX of Trust services or digitization, large enterprises force SMEs to use their own systems such as EDI. As SMEs have to respond to each business partners with a separate system, it is difficult to search for the other party, date, amount, etc., and they often return to responding to paper.
    • If standardization of data and APIs is to be done on the accounting system side, which is used by SMEs, data portability between service providers will become important, which is an important perspective in Trust from the perspective of SMEs.
    • Since some companies, such as small and medium-sized enterprises, cannot manage their own keys, TAL (Trust Assurance Level), including ensuring the safety and portability of service providers, is important.
    • I think that it is necessary to take international consistency, but I think that we should consider how to take international consistency after advancing discussions by focusing on what can be done now.
    • In considering the Trust foundation, it is necessary to consider separately what is the minimum necessary as legal infrastructure and what and to what extent can be dealt with in the world of interpretation and operation. Regarding legal stability in trials, in trials, the authenticity of documents has been formed by case-law jurisprudence, and it is not that it is dealt with by legislation. Therefore, stability in trials is dealt with in the world of interpretation and operation rather than creating new legislation. We believe that there is a part that can be sufficiently dealt with in the form of Article 2 Q & amp; A and Article 3 Q & amp; A of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.
    • On the other hand, in terms of legal infrastructure, there is no legal basis for e-seals. We believe that the bottleneck is that e-signatures have a Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act and timestamps have an institutional framework, but e-seals do not.
    • In terms of Trust infrastructure, it is important to involve SMEs as much as possible. Since all SMEs must respond to tax returns, the ability to use e-Seal in tax returns is a major factor.
    • ESeal believes that whether national certification systems, such as Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act and time stamps, are necessary or whether private sector's systems should be used will be discussed in the future.
    • For example, when using e-SEAL for tax returns, it is necessary to consult with the tax authorities and ensure consistency, as was the case when the certification system for time stamps was established.
    • When considering international cooperation, if it is necessary to create an equal footing situation, it is necessary to proceed with consideration based on the perspective that the EU side has a legal system under the eIDAS Regulation, but the Japanese side does not, and the EU side will accept it.
    • In terms of stability in court, it may not necessarily be a law, but when a product using individual Trust services is brought to a court and the court determines whether or not it is safe, I think it is important for the court to create a precedent after indicating some level classification related to Trust services.
    • As for the legal basis, I think that if technology is written in detail in a law, society will move first, and the law will become old and will not be referred to. In addition, there are cases where the proper spread of the technology in the world leads to a sense of security in the end. In this way, I think that stability in court needs to be examined in combination with the spread of Trust services.
    • It may be a historical trend in social systems that, like time stamps, things are first organized and recognized as private sector Sites, and then they become laws. But only when there is such an order, do we get closer to the actual practice.
    • If laws and legal frameworks that can be used only in Japan are examined, there is a possibility that overseas transactions will be hindered. Therefore, attention should be paid to the perspective of international cooperation.
    • We should think of ways to prevent the strong from imposing ways and the weak from taking risks and costs.
    • In the discussion, it is good that it is clear what kind of people will be considered in what kind of use cases.
  • The secretariat explained that the meeting materials will be published on the Digital Agency website later, and the minutes of the meeting will be published after the members confirm the content.
  • The secretariat explained that the next meeting of the sub-working group is scheduled to be held online from 11:00 on December 13.
    End