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 ".

Third Meeting of Experts Promoting the Base Registry

Last Updated:

Overview

  • Date: Monday, May 26, 2025, from 15:00 to 17:00
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Public Basic Information Database Development and Improvement Plan (Draft)
      2. Private Use of Corporate Registry
      3. Regarding the schedule for future discussions
    3. Closing

Data

Minutes, etc.

Date and time

  • Monday, May 26, 2025, from 15:00 to 17:00

Location

  • Online

Attendees

Chairman

  • Junji Annen (Attorney, Professor of Chuo University)

Member

  • Hidemi Itayakoe (Representative Director of DATAL Inc.)
  • Tatsuhiko Inadani (Professor, Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University)
  • Hirotake Ogi (Data Advisor, Japan Digital Design Co., Ltd.)
  • Naoko Ogawa (General Manager, Industrial Technology Division, Japan Business Federation)
  • Takafumi Ochiai (Attorney at law, Atsumi & Sakai, Foreign Law Joint Enterprise)
  • Katsunori Kageyama (Executive Director (General Affairs) of Japan Federation of Judicial Scriveners Associations)
  • Yasuko Kataoka (General Manager, Policy Department, New Economic Federation)
    *Attendance by proxy: Minoru Ogiso (External Affairs Advisor, New Economic Federation)
  • Ken Takakura (Executive Director of the Japanese Federation of Land and Building Investigators Associations)
  • Masakazu Masujima (Attorney at law, Mori Hamada & Matsumoto)
  • Hirokazu Minami (Director of Yasuragi Measures Division, Health and Welfare Department, Tanabe City)

Observer

  • Atsushi Inumaru (Director of the Civil Systems Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Administration Bureau)
  • Futoshi OTANI (Director of the Second Civil Affairs Division, Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau)
  • Hiroshi TANAKA (Manager of Commercial Affairs Division, Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau
  • Natsuki Tsuda (Director of the Treasury Division, Ministry of Finance Financial Bureau)

Minutes

Takinoura Director: Minegaura. Now that we are almost all here, I would like to start the 3rd "Expert Meeting on the Promotion of the Base Registry", commonly known as Bellabow.

It will be held online again today.

Regarding the notice of absence, I heard that the observers from the Personal Information Protection Commission Secretariat and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Municipal Affairs Division were absent.

I would like to ask Chairman Yasunen to take care of the proceedings.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Now, let's get down to business. Today's agenda consists of the three items listed in the agenda.

First of all, I would like to ask for an explanation from the Secretariat on agenda item 1, "Public Basic Information Database Development and Improvement Plan (Draft)."

Takinoura Director: Improvement Plan. I will briefly explain Handouts 1 and 2 for about 10 minutes.

First, I would like to briefly summarize what kind of discussions you had last time. Firstly, regarding the content of the maintenance and improvement plan, some pointed out that there are operational aspects from both the operational and system perspectives. However, this time, the system maintenance plan will be the main topic, so the operational aspects will not be described in detail. However, in the maintenance and improvement plan, by describing in detail what use cases, who will use them, and for what purpose, we are trying to make it easy to imagine how we will improve our operations. In addition, we have corrected the wording and expressions that are difficult to understand.

It is on the next page. There were major discussions on the cost burden and the scope of use, so I would like to look back a little. Regarding the cost burden, there was a discussion that there should be a corresponding burden on the users in general. In particular, the system, which is the foundation of registration itself, naturally needs to be maintained and operated stably, so we should pay attention not to have a negative impact on securing the budget, etc.

Of course, the cost of this system will be a problem, but in addition, regarding data, for example, considering that the development rate of maps is still only 50 to 60%, it is still necessary to develop the data itself as a base registry, according to the discussion.

Going to the next page, you also discussed how to consider the use in the private sector. This will be dealt with separately in Agenda 2, so I will briefly introduce it. In the previous meeting, you discussed how to handle the use in the private sector is a very important issue, although it will be considered in the future. Among them, the base registry will be used in the sense of trust, so there are great expectations for the use in the private sector. On the other hand, there are many players who have already developed businesses using open data, so it is necessary to carefully consider the distinction between the use in the private sector and business activities.

Based on these discussions, I will mainly introduce a slightly updated version of the text of the maintenance and improvement plan.

First, the major changes, I would say, the additions are on page 7. This is about "how the usage burden should be and the scope of use" and "private use," and it is written to the effect that what I just briefly mentioned will be treated as future issues to be considered. In particular, regarding the scope of use, what I write in part a is about administrative or quasi-administrative matters. For private use, I will carefully examine specific data items, etc., and identify issues after considering the governance of data, the cost burden, and the impact on private sector.

Next, the development plan itself has been added to the real estate registry this time. The structure of the real estate base registry is basically the same as the corporate base registry, but the major cross-cutting issues include map information. This time, as the base registry, the content, format, and frequency of maps will be accurately grasped in accordance with needs, and measures will be considered in consideration of consistency with existing initiatives.

Next is the address and location, the so-called base registry for address part. I would like to review the awareness of issues here, but there are three. First, regarding address and location information, for example, there are transportation and delivery companies and map companies, but multiple entities are working on the same thing, and from a social point of view, the cost may overlap. In addition, it may be a certain burden for administrative agencies to provide data and answers to the same inquiries from many players. In addition, various players are developing it, and it may be difficult to link the original address indication and lot number, and there may be difficulties in data compatibility, interoperability, matching, and linkage. We are currently developing the granularity of town characters, so we will continue to work to keep the data updated.

Going a little further, on page 15, I would like to explain how to deal with the details deeper than Chinese characters, how to add IDs, and how to improve the notation, which is becoming more and more difficult. These are the specific issues to be considered in the future.

In addition, this is the same as real estate registration, but I think what to do about maps will come up. When we talk about maps, we should consider what needs there are, including those provided in the form of open data and those in business, and we should work on it.

That is all about the major changes and updates, and the remaining parts are mostly answers to the legally required items, or rather, written policies for efforts, so I will not go into details.

In terms of major items, I would like to add a list of those that have already been developed as a database. In addition, I would like to describe in detail the roles that I would like National Printing Bureau and the International Peace Cooperation Agency (IPA) to play.

Finally, in the form of policy effects, for each use case, how much effect can be obtained, and mainly, as I introduced in the past, how much economic effect can be obtained by saving the time required for the procedures, are summarized.

That's all for the brief explanation. That's all for the explanation.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Next, I would like to hear one presentation from the members. The exchange of views will be held after the presentation and the statements of the relevant ministries and agencies are completed.

Then, Mr. Ken Takakura, Senior Managing Director of the Japanese Federation of Land and Building Investigators' Associations, will explain. Please turn on the camera and microphone and explain.

Mr. Takakura, please.

Member: In the case of . This is Takakura, Executive Director of the Japan Federation of Land and House Investigators' Associations.

I would like to explain the necessity of data linkage while looking at some materials, although it slightly overlaps with what I talked about orally last time.

Please turn to the next page. This describes the documents that are required to be submitted for notification and application by administrative agencies. The upper part on the left side is an application form for confirming the boundary of a public road. It requires the provision of a cadastral map, a certificate of registered matters, and a land survey map as attached documents. Below that is a parcel boundary examination map that is also submitted. The characters are slightly small and difficult to see, but in order to confirm the road boundary with the two parcels of land in the center, the owners of the adjacent land, land area, land category, presence or absence of a land survey map, and existing structures are described in the survey map. For each measured side length, the difference from numerical data such as a land survey map is described, and necessary information for administrative agencies to examine the parcel boundary is included.

In this case, we provide 1 copy of the cadastral map, 9 copies of the certificate of registered matters, and 6 copies of the parcel area survey map. The acquisition of this information itself is not so much trouble because it can be easily requested in a lump sum by the existing registration information provision service, but as a qualified person, we recognize that it is part of the necessary investigation work. When registering, these drawings are generally submitted as part of the report, and the registrar uses them as materials when certifying the parcel boundary.

The one on the right is attached to the application for permission under Article 5 of the Agricultural Land Act, so-called permission for conversion of agricultural land. This is provided for the purpose of examining the effects of the act of conversion of agricultural land on surrounding cultivated land and agricultural waterways. It is a map, sometimes a cadastral map, on which owners, cultivators, land category, and land area are displayed in an overlapping manner. In addition, it is also a material to clarify the difference between the registered land category and the current usage status by overlapping aerial photographs.

If you look at these two points, I think you can see what kind of information the administration actually requires for the examination of permits and licenses. As I said last time, it is exactly this GIS printed out on paper, and it is information that integrates and visualizes real estate registration data. Probably, the administration wants such information in the field of taxation and disaster response, and at present, each local government is struggling to respond with the small resources they have, I felt that way from listening to the presentations from local governments so far.

Then, on the next page, I thought in my own way what kind of data linkage would lead to labor saving and optimization of administrative work. On the left, there is a residential map of the area where my personal office is located. The part enclosed by the red line is extracted, and the map information obtained by the G-Space Information Center and converted into open data is overlaid in red. The figure on the right is the one. This figure itself was simply created by me, but it is possible to visually link the residential indication and the lot number. For example, by clicking "Lot number: 1 - 193", a balloon is displayed, and if it is possible to display real estate information and obtain drawings from it, I think the utility of the registration data linkage will be quite large.

On the other hand, as for the challenges to realize it, as I told you last time, the update frequency of open data of the current map is somewhat lacking in immediacy. In addition, it is said that the development of maps and cadastral map that have the accuracy to be combined with residential maps is insufficient. Therefore, not only the system development cost but also the cost for preparing the materials in the first place is required, so I think it is necessary to consider whether the effect commensurate with the cost can be obtained in the short term.

With regard to real estate registration, especially registration of description, which we specialize in, online application has spread considerably thanks to the efforts of Ministry of Justice, but on the other hand, the current situation is that the electromagnetic procedure has not advanced that far with the miscellaneous applications and notifications of local governments. If the electromagnetic procedure has advanced, I think that it would be possible to save staff time by automatically displaying the real estate information that is the content of the application, as in the preprint on page 4 of Handout 2 this time, but this is not the case in the current situation, and manual input is inevitably required for information cooperation. Labor shortage is a problem in various places, but in order to overcome the labor shortage, it is necessary to reduce the labor and improve the efficiency of administrative work, and I think that such cooperation by GIS will become an ideal image. However, from the viewpoint of personal information protection, it is an ideal image when information cooperation between administrative organizations is assumed at this stage, and I would like you to consider cost effectiveness when improving the system.

Please take a look at the next page. This page describes the efforts of the private sector. On the right is the Association of Civil Affairs and Legal Affairs, so it may be a bit misleading to say private sector, but private sector companies that provide maps are involved, so I will introduce it as an example. There are some companies that have already implemented GIS using such map data. It is planned to be discussed at this meeting, but I think it is possible to inhibit such corporate activities depending on the approach to opening up to the private sector. Therefore, I think it is important to promote discussions on the development of a base registry based on the actual situation.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: , Senior Managing Director, thank you very much.

Next, I would like to ask the relevant ministries and agencies for their opinions. First of all, Mr. Ministry of Justice, regarding the development improvement plan, I would like to ask you to speak as the competent authority for the registration system.

Then, I would like to ask Mr. Hiroshi Tanaka, Section Chief of the Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau, to turn on the camera and microphone and speak.

Mr. Tanaka, Manager of Trading Section: This is Mr. Tanaka, Manager of Trading Section, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice, . Nice to meet you.

At the previous meeting, we received a variety of opinions and discussions on the draft of the Development and Improvement Plan, including on how administrative organizations, which are the users of the Corporate Registry, should bear the cost of using the Corporate Registry and the scope of its use. Regarding the cost burden, I stated that it is difficult for Ministry of Justice alone to bear the cost of operating the Corporate Registry and implement it in parallel with the stable development and operation of the registration system, which is the source of information for the Corporate Registry. I believe that there is a certain level of understanding about this situation. We will continue to consider this matter based on your opinions and comments.

In addition, regarding the registration information of corporations, in addition to the partners of the current registration information coordination system, we have also heard that courts want to use it. In any case, from March next year, we intend to steadily develop the system so that administrative agencies, etc. can access and use the data of the corporate-based registry.

At today's meeting, I have heard that the entire draft plan, including the parts other than the corporate-based registry, is on the agenda. Based on your opinions, Ministry of Justice will continue to respond firmly in cooperation with Digital Agency so that the operation can start smoothly.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: Tanaka-san, thank you very much.

Next, I would like to ask Mr. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications who is in charge of the Residential Indication Act and the Local Autonomy Act.

Then, Mr. Atsushi Inumaru, Director of the Resident Program Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Administration Bureau, please turn on the camera and microphone and speak.

Mr. Inumaru, Manager of the Resident Program Section: This is Inumaru, Manager of the Resident Program Section of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, .

With regard to base registry for address, in particular, we will consider specific measures for the development of data below the town, so Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications will firmly make efforts in cooperation and collaboration with Digital Agency.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: , thank you very much.

Please tell us if you have any comments or questions on this agenda item, including the comments from the relevant ministries and agencies.

First, Mr. Itaya Koshi, please.

Koshi ITAYA: .

May I share the screen with you for a moment?

Chairman Yasunen: Secretariat all right?

Koshi ITAYA: I'm sorry, I shared it. Is it all right?

Thank you very much for your earlier talk. Regarding this talk, I happened to organize the issues in another company's efforts, so I wanted to share the sense of issues mentioned in the first or second presentation again as a supplement, so I would like to share it.

First of all, I think the reason why we can get enough information when we do the work that we can see with our eyes and we are the same here is because of your activities so far. On the other hand, in the first or second presentation, the presenters shared a sense of challenge, but in the work of real estate registry investigation, I think there was a story that it does not stick because there is no key. Let me share the essentially same challenge with that story. This is something we happen to be doing separately, but as a private company, we are talking about how to tackle the problem of linking address information and map information. Since we are a private company, we are analyzing over tens of thousands of specific information, in fact, information on EV spots. If we do not correct the data conversion of address information for those spots, we cannot link them to map information and XML data. After linking them to map information, of course, we cannot link them to valuable data such as road traffic volume, population density, and weather information. As a result, there is a problem that we cannot perform valuable analysis. For this reason, we are doing what I am going to tell you now in a general-purpose way. There are dozens of other companies, and I think there are hundreds or thousands of them, but they all have the same problem. We have come up with a prototype of a mechanism that can perform conversion and correction in the same way, and we are sharing it with everyone in the community.

To put it concretely, it follows what has been said so far, but there are many cases where the original data is included in this way. There are characters, and Chinese numerals are included, or it is double-byte based. First of all, as for problem 1, data conversion must be done. What this means is that there is no key to link to this Excel data on both sides. Either there is one or neither of them. When linking, if there is an ID of Chinese characters, it will be linked, but if there is not, something will have to be done, for example, via latitude and longitude, so it will not be linked. That is the essence.

What we are doing up to that point is, first, converting alphanumeric characters, unifying half-width characters, removing characters, and converting external characters. First, we go from here to here. After that, what we are doing is, in fact, correcting data, and adding reverse lookup of town ID such as zip code, latitude / longitude, and municipality code. We are doing this, and in addition, linking the minimum necessary municipality code or, if possible, town ID to the XML side. We are linking by municipality code base or town ID base, and linking the raw data of this text with mesh code, so-called this area is here. Finally, we can link necessary data to here and analyze it.

What I want to tell you is that the data of G-space information does not have a Chinese character ID, so in reality, the data of G-space information is a plain version of the address. In addition, there is no Chinese character ID. Therefore, Chinese character IDs are attached. On the left side, it depends on the target data, but in many cases, it is often done with characters, so Chinese characters are left out and unified into a single byte. In addition, there are almost no Chinese character IDs, so Chinese character IDs are attached. By linking them, the keys finally match and can be analyzed. I can't do it 100%, but I can match from 80 to 90 in a state where Chinese characters are not attached at all, so I felt that I could analyze them in a lump more than in a state where Chinese characters are not attached.

This time, I think that the registration information is mentioned, but the registration information is also a full-width version with characters, and of course there is no town ID, and the character base is for the reason of the Real Estate Registration Act. In the past, when I searched for another case, I found that there is such a thing, so in the end, there is no town ID, so it cannot be connected. I think that is the core of my sense of challenge. Therefore, I said that I hope the day will come, and that even if there is no town ID, the private sector will try to somehow connect them. It is almost common, but I spoke to convey my sense of challenge. If there is a slight difference, there is a person who is familiar with it, so I would be grateful if you could add it.

Thank you for your time.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Regarding the handling of the data you just shared, I would like to consult with you or consider it separately.

Koshi ITAYA: There is no problem at all because it is zero confidentiality.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Now, I would like to ask Mr. Ogi, Mr. Kageyama and Mr. Inadani, whose hands are raised, to speak in that order.

Fan member: This is Ogi . Thank you very much.

All in all, I believe that the role of the Digi-Agency, which plays a cross-sectional role as well as an individual project, or the role of the Digi-Agency described on page 7 of the Improvement Plan, is best if the plan can be successfully implemented. However, in implementing the plan, I believe that it is necessary to be more aware of the system and operational issues raised by the Digi-Agency in the course of materializing and breaking down the future development plan. In particular, since it is said that the project will be provided as a service, I believe that even the Digi-Agency has enough experience to run the project in the position of providing services in the future. I am sorry to say this in a very rude way, but if it spreads widely to the municipal offices, I believe that an appropriate system needs to be established.

In addition, in normal times, even if it is done normally, I think it will work out. However, when there is a problem, how should we handle it? As I mentioned last time, looking at the effects on the last page, after all, these are so-called "deemed" effects, which are calculated on a time-based basis. I believe that they are effects that are accumulated in trouble and disappear in a blink of an eye. Therefore, I believe that this point needs to be considered in a more in-depth manner as the plan is elaborated.

That's all for me.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Then, Kageyama-san, please go ahead.

Member of Kageyama: Thank you, Thank you. This is Kageyama.

I would like to make a few remarks on Appendix 2.

Paragraph 2 of Part 2 states that "administrative organs, etc. collect based on legitimate authority." In the Base Registry initiative, it is considered very important to clarify that data can be accessed based on legitimate authority, and I understand that this is an appropriate description.

In addition to this, the validity of the purpose of use is also a matter of high concern. In various parts of this improvement plan, the users of the base registry and the purpose of use are written. However, just in case, I felt that it would be more reassuring for the users if it was written that the collected data would be used based on legitimate reasons in addition to collecting based on legitimate authority in the Ogami section.

Next, there is an item of omission in the attached document in (2) (I) a on page 2 of Appendix 2. Regarding this point, I would like to share a little image of the practical work after the operation. It is a detailed point, but if the information of the representative person, etc. is different at the time of the application and the time when the administrative organ accessed the base registry, it is possible that the application information related to the application and the information recorded in the base registry may be distorted. There is a description about the preprint on pages 3 and 14, which is intended to reduce the input burden of the applicant and the government officials matching work, but I felt that there is a possibility of practical confusion in cases where the information is different at the time of the application and the time when the base registry was accessed, as in the previous example. As it is a detailed point, I do not think it should be included in the maintenance and improvement plan, but I made a statement with the implication that it is an issue to be considered in the future.

On page 8, c of Appendix 2, it is stated that "Administrative agencies using the database will make efforts to ensure that the corporate registration number is linked at the application stage." Although the corporate registration number is recorded in the commercial corporate registration record, which is the basis of the base registry, and the corporate registration number is assigned by the National Tax Agency, we would like to confirm whether it is correct to read that what is recorded in the base registry is the corporate registration number as shown in the table on page 20, not the corporate registration number.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Then, Mr. Inadani, please.

Member Inadani: I thought that Professor Masujima .

I would like to talk on the premise that I am not asking you to reflect it in the development and improvement plan this time. Many people have already pointed out the details of the development and improvement plan this time, so I would like to make a comment from a slightly different perspective. Among the various discussions I have heard this time, what has been a problem many times is how to link base registry for address, real estate base registry, and map information or geographic information space data. Among them, I understand that there are discussions on the relationship between the activities of private companies and the development of base registry.

On the other hand, at the Study Group on the Data Utilization System for Digi-Gyozai, Professor Ochiai is also present, and there are quite a lot of discussions from the perspective of how to create digital public goods. The base registry has exactly the same characteristics as digital public goods from the perspective of improving convenience by making basic data available to all people, or in other words, creating a foothold for realizing the right to pursue happiness of individuals. In the discussion of creating public goods, the idea of expropriation of data held by a designated entity for public purposes is mentioned several times. In other words, Article 29, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution stipulates that private property can be used for public purposes in the first place, so there is talk that it can be expropriated in exchange for compensation.

In the base registry this time, I think it is necessary to examine what is necessary and to what extent, such as demand and needs. In constructing the base registry, for example, private entities have certain geospatial information data, and if there is a difference in convenience depending on whether it is linked or not, I think it would be a good idea to consider developing it in the future, while taking into account the discussion on data expropriation.

This data expropriation mechanism will probably become necessary not only in this field but also in other situations, so I think we need to improve the system somewhere. However, I feel that this issue is a good example for us to talk about. I would like to reiterate that I do not want it to be included in the development and improvement plan itself, but as an example for promoting this type of initiative in the future, in terms of the size of the issue, I think it will be in cooperation with a larger council. I think there are various ways to raise the issue from the council, have it accepted, and then withdraw it. However, I thought it would be better to consider this issue a little while listening to various discussions, so I made a few comments.

Thank you.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Then, shall I ask Mr. Minami?

Member Minami: Minami .

I do not know the extent of the drawings displayed by the Federation of Land and Building Investigators, but I think that there is no problem because I think that such things can be roughly understood. However, regarding the part of base registry for address from page 14, in this part, there is a description that IDs, etc. will be unified. Among them, there is a "Postal Number Book" in the "Database for Other Maintenance" on page 16. Just today, Japan Post Co., Ltd. announced a digital address in the news, and each of these has been announced, so I suddenly thought that consideration must be given based on such unified IDs in the future, so I expressed my opinion.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Mr. Ochiai, please.

Member of Ochiai: .

In that case, I would like to comment on the basic plan first. One thing, in Professor Kageyama's point, I think there was a talk about the representative, and I thought about what it means when I thought about it more abstractly as a kind of common issue, but the information is not consistent, and for the representative, for example, if he marries, his family name may change and his address may change. Of course, the date of birth may not have much to do with it, but I think that the information that can be a variable that can change is the same for real estate and companies, so I thought that as a base registry, for example, there will be a great increase in the number of times when information is not consistent between multiple databases and cannot be linked. In that case, I think that what should be done to make it easier to use, and in some cases, it may lead to push-type administration. I understand that it will be difficult to go there immediately, but I think that is the ultimate purpose of the digital agency. Considering that not all databases are necessarily up-to-date at the same time, I think it is important to set rules for linking databases, such as pushing from the base registry in this case as the order of reference. I think there is data governance in the sense of who can access and how, as discussed today, but I think it is also important to simply set rules for references between databases as governance, so I thought it would be good to have a description with this point in mind.

The second point is about the roles of Digital Agency. There are places that create and provide base registries, and I think that users should try to use them as much as possible. For example, among the efforts being made by the Digi-Agency, I think that they may create a standard system for electronic medical records or a local system that can be used by various people. It is not necessarily clear whether this part will be created immediately in the future, but if there is such an opportunity, of course, I would like to see a mechanism that connects common functions to the base registry and a mechanism that can be used by various applications as much as possible to make it easier for various people to use. I am aware of the issue of how much can be written due to various budget issues, but I thought it is a kind of goal.

The third point was Professor Inadani's statement on digital public goods. It is not necessarily limited to Article 29 (3) of the Constitution. In short, there is talk of exchanging data between the public and private sectors, including so-called bilateral transactions. It is not necessarily limited to compulsory ones, and I thought it would not be good if it sounded compulsory by any chance, so it is just a slight supplement. With regard to the coordination, I would like you to consider that a mechanism for communication between the public and private sectors will be further developed in the future. Also, at that time, how will the country fulfill its role? In other words, I think there is an aspect that the country will create digital infrastructure. Of course, the concept of so-called digital infrastructure or base registry itself has not been seen to that extent so far. I do not call it pressure on the private sector, but I think that there may be conflicts depending on the situation. However, what needs to be done publicly needs to be done, and a certain way of production related to pressure on the private sector may arise as a point of discussion in another dimension. First of all, while considering the role theory, if there is an adverse impact on the private sector, I would like you to consider in order how to provide some kind of relief.

I received an explanation from the Judicial Scriveners Association, and I think they organized the registration data in a way that is easy to read. There is one point. I think there was a discussion in the middle, but I think there is how far we can aim for consistency with various drawings. In the explanation, for example, there was a story of abandoned farmland overlapped with aerial photographs, and I think there are several scenes that are used together, including tax. I think they were introduced. On the other hand, I think there are many cases where the identification of the map by the ownership world, the so-called residence indication system, and real roads are not necessarily overlapped. In that sense, in order to consider how many people should be considered when preparing the base registry, I would like you to tell me which drawings the teachers of the Judicial Scriveners Association often associate with this map of the ownership world in their duties. I think it may be difficult to match it with the residence indication as it is, but I think it is important to understand how far we should consider using this data, so I would like to ask you a question.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: , before I forget, there was a point that you just made, so if Mr. Kageyama has any comments, please do so.

Member of Kageyama: Thank you, As for the map data, I believe it was announced by a member of the Japan Federation of Land and House Investigators' Associations. If you don't mind, could you please start with a member of the Federation?

Chairman Yasunen: , I'm sorry to have turned the bowl, but do you have any comments?

Member of Ochiai: I'm sorry, but I just noticed that there are many judicial scriveners such as Mr. Kageyama, so I thought it would be better to ask Mr. Kageyama to teach me if there are any areas where he can teach me.

Chairman Yasunen: , if Mr. Takakura and Mr. Kageyama make statements in that order, please do so.

Member: In the case of I'm sorry I missed your question. May I ask you a question again?

Chairman Yasunen: , please say it again.

Member of Ochiai: I understand. This time, I think you have shown that there are many situations in which it is useful to prepare drawings based on the structure of the registration and the division of the ownership world, including the case of abandoned farmland and tax. On the other hand, I think that there are many cases in which it is not always the same with the housing indication and the drawings of the infrastructure managed in the actual field. I thought it would be good to go to the ownership world and ask what are the other situations in which they are asked to submit documents on the ownership world. I thought that this is the range that needs to be kept in mind in some kind of base registry, and I thought that it is most often seen by teachers, so I asked you a question.

Chairman Yasunen: What is it like?

Member: In the case of I'm sorry, but I have a little intention.

Member of Ochiai: In short, it may be better to say, what kind of documents are there that are often said to be useful to be overlapped with drawings of real estate registry in practice?

Member: In the case of Tochi Kaoku Chousashi (land and building investigator), I think it will end up as I mentioned in the presentation earlier, but I think it is necessary to search for owners, and in the case of administrative scriveners, it is necessary to understand the difference between the registered land category and the current usage status in the case of farmland conversion, for example.

Member of Ochiai: I understand.

Chairman Yasunen: , what do you think? If you notice anything in this regard, please tell us.

Member of Kageyama: Thank you, It may not be appropriate as a necessary situation, but in practice, what I was asked most strictly was the situation of belonging to the national treasury in the case of non-existence of heirs. In this case, I had the experience of being asked to submit it by the Financial Bureau quite severely, and even if it was in units of several centimeters or millimeters, as long as it was managed by the national government, it was strict. Therefore, when I considered connecting these points, I felt that it would be more useful if I could obtain more accurate data, reduce the confusion of land number and residence indication, and firmly grasp the data.

It may not be a direct answer to the question from Mr. Ochiai, so I'm sorry.

Member of Ochiai: No, I understood very well from what you told me. After all, the main target of the base registry is the case where it is linked to ownership or the case where it is linked to the understanding of the owner. The fixed asset tax is also paid by the owner, so I understood that the fixed asset tax can also be used. Farmland is also connected to the attributes of the owner who lives there, so I understood that the meaningful range can be seen by that. Thank you.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Thank you very much for waiting. Mr. Ogiso, please.

Ogiso member: I'm sorry that I didn't show my face because I'm out.

Just in case, since I do not know the definition of administrative organs, I would like to confirm how far they are included. Recently, laws for the use of IT in the judiciary and trials have been enacted one after another, so of course, judicial organs are included in the broader sense of administrative organs. One point was confirmed, and if they are not included, it would be better to include them. Just in case.

There is one more point that overlaps with what Professor Ochiai is saying, but in terms of real estate-related information, how to understand the owners has become a social issue, so we are discussing it. I believe that this Base Registry will be the beginning of a large foundation, but I always think that it is a little difficult to understand how far and how the entire information related to real estate has been prepared as the entire policy system, and how the division of roles and policy coordination between Digital Agency and other ministries and agencies are. To put it simply, speaking of real estate, for example, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is considering real estate IDs, and is working on a real estate information library. Of course, it does not conflict with the registration we are working on, but I think we will connect them based on this. However, I cannot see the entire policy schedule. In terms of the old growth strategy that I mentioned earlier, there was talk of cooperation with the fixed asset tax ledger. In addition, as you mentioned earlier, the agricultural ledger is being created. I would like to see a little more of an overall picture of how this will be linked to the registration information that will be created this time. I do not mean that the description you are giving now is not good, but if I appeal more, the necessity of the base registry will become more apparent, and I think it will become easier for the people and the media to understand. That is what I said.

There are 2 points. That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: , I would like to say this to Mr. Ogiso as a sermon to the Buddha. The "administrative organizations, etc." in the development and improvement plan that we are discussing now is described as a selection of various organizations listed in Article 3 of the Digital Administration Promotion Act, or in the form of taking this and that. Does that mean that there are still unclear points?

Ogiso member: In that case, does the judicial body leak?

Chairman Yasunen: , that's a leak. That will be discussed separately. That's what Ministry of Justice just pointed out.

Ogiso member: I see. Sorry, I missed that part.

Chairman Yasunen: I see. Thank you very much. That is also an important issue.

Thank you for waiting, Mr. Masujima.

Masujima: Thank you, .

I thought it was a little similar to what Mr. Ogiso said, but I saw it being completed now, and I think the discussion so far has been well organized. On the other hand, it says that it will be added after the registration of various items from other ministries and agencies. So far, it is very unified and the whole picture is visible, but I don't really understand what will be included here. I was a little confused as to whether what Mr. Ogiso said will be included or not, and how the whole plan will look, whether it will really be a unified document. I think Mr. Digital Agency has a plan to write something like this, so I was wondering if you could give me some hints.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Then, have you made your remarks? What do you think, Mr. Takuya? If you get a response, please do so.

Takinoura Director: .

There were quite a lot of questions, so I have time to answer all of them, so I will briefly explain some of the questions that I can answer easily and our reaction. From the discussion by Mr. Takakura and Mr. Itaya, I recognized that the major issue is how to link the map information and the registration in the future, broadly speaking, the indication of residence and the lot number. In addition, there are many areas where the cleansing of data and the improvement of data itself have not been completed yet, and I recognize again that the issue to be considered here is how to do it.

At the same time, when I talk about how far we should go in this context, it is related not only to the development of the system, but also to the system itself that is responsible for the data, its purpose, and the purpose for which the data is being collected in the first place. Basically, our main focus is on distributing or utilizing certain data. However, I believe that we will go back to the system and consider how the data should be in the first place. Although this will be considered by the ministries and agencies that are responsible for the system, I believe that we will advance the discussion on the base registry while giving feedback to those ministries and agencies.

As for the operation, as it is written in the back, with the cooperation of IPA, at least what we are going to do now will be done without fail. As for the purpose of use, data preparation and the purpose of use itself are written in various ways, but the scope of use is related to those who access it, and I think it is a little related to private use, so I think we need to look at each use case in more detail. I would like to think about this presented by Mr. Kageyama while looking at the use cases.

In addition, there was talk of DPI (Digital Public Infrastructure). This is a big topic, so I think we can discuss it separately. Also, real estate IDs and postal IDs were mentioned in a timely manner. There is a need to attach IDs to these things for the time being, but IDs are quite difficult to attach in the first place. As for addresses, there seems to be some fluctuations in the data of the internal address display that the post office has, so I have an image that base registry for address will collect it as master data and use it.

In addition, we are cooperating with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, which has jurisdiction over real estate IDs, on a case-by-case basis. We are doing this in a simple way, or in a way where our base registry can be used, but I think Mr. Ogiso pointed out what the picture looks like, including the possibility of its development, including Digital Agency and its surrounding areas. I think it would be good to present this as a material for discussion when we are able to sort it out.

Also, there is a relationship between the corporate number and the number written on the registry. This time, we will use the corporate number of National Tax Agency as the search key. However, as the information on the registry, it is the corporate number of the Companies Act. To give a formal name, it is the corporate number of the Companies Act. I understand that there is such information as well. I would like to answer after confirming the details.

In addition, as Dr. Masujima mentioned, I have been listening to what each ministry is saying, and I do not think it will be included in the improvement plan of the base registry this time. It may still be included in the version that I sent to Dr. Masujima, but if it is not finalized, I will not write it.

That's all for now.

Chairman Yasunen: .

We heard a variety of opinions, but Mr. Takakura's comments and subsequent discussions with several people led us to believe that the link between the indication of residence and the lot number was quite a big issue. In addition, Mr. Tanaka, Manager of the Trading Company Division, also expressed his opinion on the scope of users of the corporate-based registry, and Mr. Ogiso also pointed out this. As there seems to be no explicit description of these in the current draft of the Plan for the Development and Improvement of the Public Basic Information Database, I would like to ask the secretariat to consider it.

In addition, as I have heard various comments, I would like you to incorporate what can be incorporated into the plan, and I would like you to sort out the issues to be considered in the future as they cannot be realized immediately as you just mentioned.

We have discussed the draft plan three times, and although there are some points that need to be considered by the Secretariat, I believe we have reflected your opinions on the remaining points. Since this plan will be a document approved by the Cabinet, it will continue to be subject to review by various parties concerned. Therefore, if you do not have any objection, I would like to leave it to the Chairman to revise the content, and if there is a need for consultation, the Secretariat will consult with you individually. Is that correct?

(Expression of consent)

Chairman Yasunen: .

Then, I would like to proceed in that way. Thank you very much.

That is all for the Meeting's consideration of the First Public Basic Information Database Development and Improvement Plan (Draft).

Has the next occupant arrived yet?

Takinoura Director: is fine.

Chairman Yasunen: I'm sorry that the time has passed. Next, we will move on to Agenda 2, "Private Use of Corporate-Based Registries." In order to share issues and awareness of issues as we proceed with the discussion, we will have two people present today. I would like to have a presentation and exchange views after that.

First of all, please explain what the Secretariat has considered so far.

Takinoura Director: We are currently projecting materials. I would like to give you a brief explanation. In particular, the scope of use and the way of use related to the private sector have been discussed so far. At the top of the table, there are two main topics. One of them is that there are requests for confirmation from the laws and ordinances and others. Based on these requests, for example, there are cases where certificates of registered matters are issued or confirmed. There are also cases where registered information is obtained to confirm basic information and the existence of corporations in transactions between private sectors. These can be used as a base registry. These are some of the topics that were discussed. Among them, how to deal with the cost issue is a major issue. In particular, data is not free. This is a major issue that should be considered by everyone.

In addition, as the range of use increases, there will be discussions on security, governance, and personal information protection. For example, there will be discussions on how much data can be used once it has been opened or made available. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to discuss the range of use with users.

As for the details, I would like to hand it over to you as you will need to present your needs in the presentation. Thank you.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Next, Mr. Yasuhiro Kimura, Managing Executive Officer, General Manager of CPO Social Infrastructure Planning Department, Free Co., Ltd., would like to give you an explanation. Managing Director Kimura, I'm sorry to trouble you, but I would appreciate it if you could turn on the camera and microphone and give me an explanation.

Kimura-bucho: Thank you, Kimura speaking.

As you can see, I would like to explain that such a use case can be considered if the disclosure of the API of the information of the commercial registration in the base registry advances.

Please turn over one page. First, to briefly introduce our business, please show page 2. This is about accounting software and various business software for small and medium-sized companies. There are accounting software, human resources and labor software, as well as corporate credit cards.

Turning to page 3, I think there have been various discussions on the use of registry information in the private sector in the past, but if you make an online request, you can receive it by mail or face-to-face, or you can make an online inquiry and receive a PDF through "Registration Net." However, if the API of the base registry is opened, you can make use of it in various operations through it.

From page 4, as explained earlier by the secretariat and as pointed out by Mr. Ogiso, the point is that there are two types of services: those used in statutory services, and private services that are conducted by the private sector, although they are not statutory services. The first type is the most typical statutory service, which is the case where financial institutions look at registered information when they examine member stores, etc., based on the Criminal Proceeds Act. They take it in PDF and compare it with their own database. When they receive an application form saying that they want to become a member store, they look at the information and check anti-company information by searching Nikkei Telecon, for example. They also take a register and compare it with the database they have accumulated in their own company to check whether it is correct or not, and whether there is really such a situation. However, even if they do it in a few minutes per case, if they can get almost accurate data by API and can automate it to a certain degree quickly, if the number of cases is large, the work will be easier in its own way.

Next, please turn the page. The next case is statutory work. This does not mean that a specific business operator is performing a hard work. There is a periodic investigation under the Subcontract Act. When dealing with a periodic investigation, registered matters such as capital may be checked. I think there are various actual situations where all of this is done in detail, but if you try to do it properly, this is what you do. It is not efficient to do it while doing things like the current online inquiry, so if there is an opening of APIs, you can make this easier by creating a tool using it. In terms of items covered by commercial registered matters in the current periodic investigation, the name of the business operator, capital, and address should be obtained. If the address is obtained, the postal code can be estimated. That is my image.

The ones I have mentioned so far are legal ones. The next page is not a legal one, but it is a private business. It seems to be convenient if it can be automated. This is what I wrote to give you an example. For example, the first customer who introduces accounting software or personnel and labor software does the initial setting by themselves. The business name, address, and representative are recorded in the initial setting. If this can be supplemented by an API, something like a corporate number is used as a key to obtain such information. If there is an API that sends updated information by hook when there is a change in this, automatic detection and automatic change may be possible. Contract management, sales management, or accounting software records and manages master information of the list of business partners. It is possible to cleanse the accuracy based on such registered information.

This depends on how easy it is to do, including the cost burden that I mentioned earlier, and how much time and effort you want to make easier. Compared to the legal work that I mentioned earlier, it is not that you want to make it more efficient right now, but I think it is the kind of work that can be done more conveniently. Therefore, as for the work that I mentioned earlier that I have no choice but to do in laws and ordinances and want to make it as light as possible, there are definitely people who can make it very easy even though the number of people is small. These people are doing it in reality, but they are not necessarily doing it out of duty. There are variations such as there are many people but they are a little less concentrated. That is why I shared a use case for an image.

That's all for my explanation.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Next, I would like to ask Mr. Ryo Kishii, General Manager of Public Works, Business Planning Division, Simple Form Co., Ltd., to explain. General manager Kishii, I'm sorry to trouble you, but could you please turn on the camera and microphone and explain?

Kishii Supervisor: Nice to meet you.

Then, Mr. Kishii of Simple Form Co., Ltd. would like to explain briefly. Thank you for your cooperation today.

Then, please take a look at the next page. Our company was established in 2020, and we are a start-up company that will mark five years in October this year. We are a company that specializes in screening, which I will explain later, and we use a lot of administrative data such as registration information. Today, I would like to explain our company's business content, which is easy, but I think it may be a little too quick. After that, I would like to talk about our expectations for the corporate-based registry.

Please take a look at the next page. Currently, the digitalisation of transactions between corporations and non-face-to-face meetings are accelerating. On the other hand, the examination on the other side of transactions, such as the examination of financial institutions, administration, subsidies, etc., has not caught up with non-face-to-face meetings. I feel that the current situation is quite unbalanced. In fact, I feel that it has become much more difficult to obtain information such as whether they are active in the first place, what kind of businesses they run, and what kind of offices they are in, which could have been easily confirmed in the face-to-face meeting era.

Please take a look at the next page. I understand that there has been a sharp increase in cases of fraud that threatens the security of transactions. In particular, if anti-company checks had been conducted in the past, they could have been prevented to a certain extent. However, with the emergence of Tokuryu, it has been pointed out that there is an involvement of entities that are different from anti-companies. I feel that the importance of accurately identifying the counterparty has increased further.

Please take a look at the next page. Even if the number of crimes increases due to non-face-to-face contact, the method of confirming transaction partners remains the same, so I feel that the current situation is that the burden increases at the examination site. I also feel that the administration is making a certain progress in the digitalisation of applications, but the digitalisation of the examination work within the administration is not making progress. As a result, small and medium-sized enterprises and emerging corporations do not reach transactions due to lack of information or data. For example, it may be difficult to open a bank account, or they may complain about opportunities such as not being provided with subsidies.

Please take a look at the next page. In the first place, how much time and effort is required for corporate verification. On the other hand, I understand that there is too much information and information sources are scattered in various forms. I think it is difficult to continue to organize, update, analyze, and collect this information. We believe that such information infrastructure is necessary. Therefore, we are collecting information focusing on qualitative information, such as whether the company really exists or not, and how the actual business situation is.

Please take a look at the next page. Based on this structured database, we have developed products that are optimized for each examination work. Based on this data, we are a company that provides various support to administrative agencies and financial institutions for examinations.

Supporting this is the next page. Although we are a start-up, our value is "Caring for Trouble." Because of the AI era, we use real primary data that cannot be obtained only from the web, or data collected from administrative agencies such as disclosure requests, open data, etc. We collect them, link them to corporate numbers, and make them accessible from a single platform. We are a company that is transforming the examination process through these.

Please take a look at the next page. We are a company that consistently supports corporate screening from research and analysis to screening BPO.

It's a bit long, but that's all I have to say about our company, and I'll explain our expectations over the next three pages.

The first is API-compatible registration data. As explained by Mr. Free earlier, I understand that provision of information to administrative organizations is currently under development in Digital Agency. As a result, corporate registration data is organized into so-called structured data, and there have been some problems. I understand that these were considered in the first and second editions. However, I understand that the standardization of character standards will be considered. Naturally, I expect that the provision of these data and the opening of these data to the private sector will be considered on the premise of payment of consideration. In particular, I expect that the interpretation of registration information will be unified by improving the definitions of data dictionary and schema as the meaning of the data mentioned in the third point.

Please take a look at the next page. I am aware that the "Special Provisions on Notification of Change in Specified Corporate Matters" have been established in accordance with the revision of the Act. I understand that a system has been established in which if a change in registration is made, other corporate information such as approvals and licenses will also be changed or updated. In other words, I believe that the list of approvals and licenses, notifications, and approval information that should be managed by corporations can be linked to a list, and the data dictionary for each approval and license can be organized. For example, as I mentioned in the second point, if you are doing this business, you must have this approval and license. By linking these points, it can be used by those who conduct examinations, and I expect that it can also be used in corporate business activities.

Please take a look at the next page. Lastly, I understand that the current methods of acquiring administrative data used by the private sector, including our company, are two options: open data and the information disclosure system. I expect that the use of administrative data will be further promoted if there is a system that provides data only to businesses that meet specific conditions on the premise of payment, such as the public data provision request system that existed in the past, or if there is a system that can provide data more quickly than the information disclosure system, such as digital data. If such a system is considered in the medium to long term, I believe that the private sector will further promote the use of administrative data.

I'm sorry for the short explanation, but that's all. Thank you very much.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Thank you very much for the very useful information and insights from two very young executives.

Please tell us if you have any comments or questions on this agenda item, including your comments.

Mr. Kageyama, please.

Member of Kageyama: Thank you, . This is Kageyama.

First, I would like to make a statement regarding the materials of Mr. Free and Mr. Simple Form. Regarding page 3 of Mr. Free's material 5, it is stated that you can make inquiries online one by one and obtain information in PDF. I think this is as already announced, and you may point out that the purpose is different, but since 2017, you can request up to 50 items in a lump sum, and since 2024, you can download 50 items in a lump sum, so I will share it just in case.

I understand that the relationship between the Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds described on page 4 of Attachment 5 is related to the increase in non-face-to-face transactions described on page 3 of Attachment 6. However, as stated, I believe it is necessary to look ahead to the on-site examination of the Fifth Peer Review of the FATF scheduled for 2028. Therefore, I have the impression that consideration from a different perspective is also necessary.

On top of that, regarding the scope of use of the base registry, in the base registry concept, we believe that it is required to contribute to smooth and efficient administrative work in the government and the private sector by accessing it for legitimate purposes and using it within a legitimate scope. Therefore, we believe that it is desirable to start with administrative agencies, etc., which are the scope of users described in the current development and improvement plan. As stated, the names and addresses of directors are recorded in the commercial corporation registration record, and all of them are personal information. In light of the recent situation, it is possible to hide the addresses of representative directors who meet certain requirements.

As a background to this, we believe that the progress of digital technology has made it easier to list the addresses of corporate representatives. As a result, we understand that the risk of causing criminal damage and excessive business activities has increased, leading to the legislation of non-display measures.

A representative example of such damage is the so-called Bankrupt Map Incident that occurred around March 2019. There was an incident in which information posted on official gazette was aggregated, and names and addresses were linked to map data and made public, attracting social attention. If administrative organs, etc. are the users, it is considered that there is a guarantee that data can be used within the scope of legitimate use for legitimate purposes. Therefore, I think it is desirable to start with administrative organs, etc. as the users. If a case like the Bankrupt Map Incident occurs in the event of a wide opening to the private sector, the Base Registry concept, which has been under consideration for a long time, may lose its justification, and I feel that the system itself should not be brought to nothing. Therefore, I think that the initial users need to carefully consider the meaning literally.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: .

If Mr. Kimura and Mr. Kishii have any comments on what Mr. Kageyama has just pointed out, please do so. If you don't have any, do you have any?

Kimura-bucho: Thank you, is fine.

Chairman Yasunen: Is that right? Thank you.

Mr. Inadani, thank you for waiting.

Member Inadani: I thought that Professor Masujima .

I don't know much about it, so if there is any misunderstanding, I would like you to correct it later, but what I thought when I was listening to you was that it is very easy to open public information when acting as a kind of gatekeeper. That is my first point. When it came to doing something like a gatekeeper, I thought that it would be better to clarify that the benefits that could arise from this structure would be considered first, since it basically means that public law enforcement in certain areas would be carried out at a relatively low cost.

In addition, in relation to the comment made by Mr. Kageyama earlier, I thought that it would be better to consider how and to whom Japan will respond in stages. For example, as I mentioned at the meeting, there are some private entities that provide the same services as public organizations. In that case, even if the functions originally performed by public organizations are privatized and incorporated, if there is a certain degree of expectation from the viewpoint of data governance, it may be considered as the first target. In other words, even among private entities, I think it is appropriate to consider it as an object of opening, especially from an early stage. On top of that, as for the next step, as I mentioned in the presentation later, in this presentation, I think that the target of opening will be expanded to services provided by private entities as a set with a mechanism that does not go as far as a certain platform, but is specialized in taking on the gatekeeper function, and can be expected to have a certain level of security or governance, or to ensure their implementation. It is understandable that there are some areas where it is better to be a little cautious about opening up to the general public. However, regarding the issue of the bankruptcy map, in short, even when there were violations of the PICA Act, the mechanism to crack down on them was not functioning well. I believe this was part of the discussion in the previous phase. If that is the case, I think it is necessary to consider whether it is a risk that cannot be reduced even if the enforcement mechanism for individual information violations is strengthened, and then consider how to deal with it. Of course, it is possible to completely eliminate risks as a way of risk management. However, since there are several steps in the way of risk management, I feel that there is a slight difference in whether we can reach the point where all private entities must be eliminated from the beginning, even if further consideration is required as to whether or not to open the system to all.

As for the cost burden, I understand, as Mr. Freeh pointed out, that there may be a significant reduction in legal affairs. If that is the case, assuming that there is some kind of fee business in the middle, and if you can still show that it is more beneficial than doing the legal affairs by yourself, in other words, the fee paid by the middleman is exactly what Mr. Ministry of Justice is tired of by developing the base registry, as you have often said, but if it can be set up so that the middleman and the business operator who commissions the middleman can make a profit even taking into account the usage fee calculated based on the base registry development cost, I think that the business model will stand. It will probably be more than just legal affairs. Moreover, as Mr. Kishii mentioned, if there are many companies that want to create business opportunities there, I think there is a possibility that some companies will be willing to pay for the base registry. Therefore, while looking at how the business model will be established, by looking at the usage fee and commission, I think we should look at how far we can solve the problem of the cost burden for the maintenance of the base registry, which has been a problem many times.

There are two more points. One of them is that Mr. Kageyama's comment on streamlining risk management is similar to his comment that it would be a problem to open everything and make everything visible. So, from the perspective of streamlining risk management, I feel that the gatekeeper function this time will be able to clarify the information that needs to be known in each situation in advance. If that is the case, we should be able to see how much risk there is by opening it. Based on that, we can consider how far risk management can be done. This is one of the approaches.

Lastly, I would like to talk about what can be done by matching the data currently held by public organizations with the data currently available to private companies. The more we advance, the more diverse services will emerge, and at the same time, the more diverse forms of risks may emerge. At that time, I think it will be necessary to control risks by adjusting legal systems and technologies in accordance with the evolution of such services, and to develop this kind of ecosystem well. I think we need to discuss this issue while taking into account these points.

I didn't speak in a very coherent way, but I made a few comments about what I felt. That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Mr. Masujima, please.

Masujima: Thank you, .

I thought that I might have a slightly different point of view from Commissioner Inadani. In the beginning, Mr. Muneura asked whether it was legally required or whether the private sector was using it without permission. In the end, if the law says that the certificate of registered matters must be checked proactively, it means that it is legally required. This may be the case with the Criminal Proceeds Act and the subcontracting mentioned earlier, but this kind of thing is written only in places such as the gatekeeper and identity verification, and there is no mention of looking at the registry. In other words, I can't do it without looking at it, so I usually look at it, but I feel that I can't avoid looking at the copy of the registry in order to make a identity verification of a corporation. If that is the case, I feel that there is a slight difference in the way of changing the treatment or changing the fee by holding the distinction between the legal system and the private sector as one framework. You mentioned that the gatekeeper function is important for the whole system. For example, with the Criminal Proceeds Act, there is a claim that certain businesses are making money by using the financial system. If they are making money by using the positive externalities of the system, it is the duty of society to properly identity verification users, minimize the negative externalities of the system, and prevent bad people from abusing their services. With this kind of mechanism, I think that the current social structure is that there is basically no funding by the government. In other words, since you are a valued gatekeeper for society, I feel that the value of "please use the identity verification system cheaply" is not a value built into the current system.

On the whole, I may be a little strict with the private sector, but I would like to ask them to improve the efficiency of the project by introducing this system. However, I am completely opposed to the points that data can be obtained at a low cost or that the project should be allowed to freely ride on the system created by the government. In short, I feel that we should not engage in discussions like this. In other words, since it is collected by the government, we should be allowed to use it for free to make money.

In that sense, this time, Freee and SimpleForm are basically discussing on the assumption that they will pay the fee, and I think they are discussing on the assumption that they will pay the fee one by one for the amount for which they are currently receiving a certificate of registered matters in PDF. However, when they say something like opening the door to the private sector, there will inevitably be people who will flout, so I think they have been saying that it is not a discussion, but that it is a fair burden, but I think they must do it strictly and properly. That is the first point.

Next, it is connected to this. On the other hand, when I think about where to fund the cost to have and maintain such a system in the public sector, I think that there should be a logic to cover the cost by having the private sector use it. For example, Japan Patent Office has such a system and gives exclusive rights to inventions, but this is a system to protect information to a certain extent and provide it to the public. By providing such a system, patent fees are collected and Japan Patent Office's system is operating. Developing and maintaining a system to protect and distribute information is actually very expensive, so I thought it would be better to have an idea that the cost to operate this system should be paid by taking money from private sector, which can access this system and make business more efficient and advance the competition.

Furthermore, in relation to this, for example, information is linked via APIs. There are various opinions from the private sector that it would be good if the APIs were like this. However, in the end, what is being developed is for the government to use, so the government has no obligation to develop anything more than that. However, if there is a function that is convenient for the private sector to use at a high frequency, if it is developed and used, it would be good to have the idea of spending the entire operation cost of the registry by saying that it is necessary to pay this much. These are the second and third points.

Finally, what should be done has not yet been seen. For example, there are scrappers. They say there is a government database, and they have access to it. If they suck up all the data and do business with it, the government will not have enough money to operate the system. This means that the government will not be able to operate the system. Therefore, I think that it is necessary to sort out the model of taking all the data and circulating it. What kind of discipline should be used to do that? If the government makes it possible to make money by copying all the registry created by the government and obtaining information without accessing the registry, the whole system will not work. That is why I feel that it is necessary to sort out the situation a little.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: . It's difficult.

What do you think, Mr. Ochiai?

Member Inadani: I thought that Professor Masujima Excuse me, I'm Inadani for a moment in front of Mr. Ochiai.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Member Inadani: I thought that Professor Masujima misunderstood me a little, so I gave a wrong explanation. I did not mean to say that it would be OK to let them do it if it was a statutory duty. I just meant to say that it would be OK to open them to the public. Regarding the corporations that went out to privatize the business that was originally done by public organizations, the corporations were originally doing the business that was done by public organizations, but they have become private corporations only in form. Therefore, they are usually created so that they can trust the governance to some extent. When I was listening to the discussion, the order of my explanation was a little strange, so I talked about the gatekeeper, and I said that there would be a public benefit, so I thought it might be related to that. In general, today's business model has a public benefit because it has a certain gatekeeper function, but even so, there are various risks such as the protection of personal information, so in order, the case where the public function was originally taken over by the private sector is the first case. Next, the case where it seems to be reliable to some extent, and finally, depending on the situation, I said that it would be better to consider the form of opening the entire market. In addition, I think you are absolutely right about the cost burden, and the last part, scraping, for example, is a method that greatly increases the risk, so I thought while asking if there are any ways to sort out that cannot be done from a risk-based perspective in the first place.

Sorry, I'm in the middle of it. That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: .

The idea that corporations equivalent to administration can be included in users is included in this plan. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ochiai, thank you for waiting.

Member of Ochiai: Thank you very much. I think it would be good if you can see them one by one.

Firstly, with regard to the scope of use, the public sector has already taken the lead in terms of the order, and I believe that establishing the order itself will already be in the form of the Basic Plan. Next, I would like to organize the concept of opening the system to the private sector.

At that time, Mr. Kageyama pointed out at the beginning that some APIs have already been published. Before that, a mechanism was provided to allow the use of information systems on a PDF basis. In this part, whether or not the use of APIs is restricted in the first place, that is, whether or not there are any restrictions as an entity, is an important issue. If there are basically no APIs, I think that the starting point for comparison is that there were no APIs in the first place. In that case, I recognize that the APIs were originally published, so when I think about where the differences are, I think that APIs and machine-readable APIs are the de facto differences. In short, there is a mechanism to design and provide the APIs in a way that increases the possibility of machine processing. In that sense, I think that the basis for the acquisition of the APIs is organized so that it can be explained to the general public in private sector. I think that this is the situation including the development of laws, so I think it is necessary to make an evaluation based on this.

In addition, although the actual timing of the amendment is not clear, we are discussing the Act on the Protection of Personal Information in the area of digital administration and finance, and I personally agree with the establishment of a fine. However, there is talk that such a system will be developed in the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, and that the consent system will necessarily be reviewed, and in particular, the machine processing system will be streamlined to some extent. Of course, in this case, in relation to the three year review, rather than the so-called AI development itself, I recognize that it is possible to approach individual people, so I do not think that the exception clause of the agreement can be used, but I think that the ex post facto use of sanctions systems and governance is becoming stronger. I think it would be better to assess whether it is necessary to further divide the issue into individual cases based on a thorough review of the situation, and after clarifying the cases of inappropriate use as well as the case of the map of bankrupt people in the three year review, as well as clarifying it as a norm and strengthening sanctions. Regarding these points, when considering the scope of use, I think it is necessary to consider whether it is necessary to limit the use while carefully examining the analysis of the current situation and the future development schedule of the Personal Information Protection Act, and what kind of rules have been developed on a risk basis.

Regarding the cost burden, for the registration itself, I think the acquisition of registration information will basically be charged. On the other hand, I think there is a way to set the cost. As a result, when using the base registry, I think it is the same for the registry itself, commercial registration, and real estate registration, but I think there is an aspect that a part of the revenue will be absorbed by us. When considering what should be maintained as a whole, if we do not consider and discuss whether the necessary budget can be allocated even in relation to the database on the side where Ministry of Justice is located, it may be difficult for Mr. Ministry of Justice to cooperate. I think we should shoulder such a responsibility, or consider it as a budget.

In addition, regarding the cost burden, I believe that there may be a difference in the way of thinking between the attributes of users, such as the private sector, the government, or quasi-public organizations. Therefore, regarding the cost burden, I believe that the public interest will be more considered.

Lastly, in terms of data scraping and access control, in this case, I think that the cost burden is the source of the budget that forms the basis of the database itself. From the perspective of taking the necessary technical protection measures to ensure that, if APIs are meaningless if scraping is taken for free, I think that we will consider how to deal with it to that extent. If we go so far as to ban scraping in general, there are cases where APIs cannot be developed to that extent, and in the end, I think that there are some cases where it is more reasonable to ask each person to prepare a mechanism to simply obtain information automatically. On the other hand, in this case, I think that there is also the maintenance of the original database itself, so I think that we should evaluate scraping while appreciating that and not making the discussion too general.

That's all for me.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Have you heard all the comments from the members? Mr. Kimura and Mr. Kishii, do you have any comments after listening to the discussion?

Kimura-bucho: Thank you, government to release APIs. In the first place, some of Mr. Ministry of Justice's "Registration Net" already has APIs for applications. He has been doing this while talking with vendors. Especially in the tax field, there has been a long-standing relationship between the private and public sectors. They have been playing a part in the overall administrative services. So, rather than doing something brand new, I think it would be better to imitate what has been done well.

Chairman Yasunen: .

How is it, Mr. Kishii?

Kishii Supervisor: .

In the same way, the first step is to use it from the government. There may be an expression that the API for registration should be opened in stages. However, I think that we should move forward with the API. In contrast to the past, I have written a little bit from our company. Regarding the so-called open data, which is different from the free disclosure of the API and requires a certain amount of payment, as many people have pointed out, there may be problems such as scraping and secondary use. Therefore, I think that we need to proceed with a certain level of caution while deepening discussions between the public and private sectors on such issues. I am very grateful for this opportunity.

Thank you very much for today.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Thank you very much, Mr. Kishii and Mr. Kimura.

Kimura-bucho: Thank you, . Good-bye.

Kishii Supervisor: Thank you very much. Good-bye.

Chairman Yasunen: .

(Agenda item 2: Departure of Relevant Persons)

Chairman Yasunen: Please tell us if there are any comments or responses from Director on the discussions so far.

Takinoura Director: .

The scope of use and the cost burden are two sides of the same coin, and I believe that the discussions just now were wide-ranging and provided us with various perspectives and perspectives. My major reaction is that there are two risks: the cost burden to avoid being a free rider in terms of cost, and the cost and the risk of unexpected use when imposing restrictions on usage or users. I thought that the risk of unexpected use based on information from various people, such as the sexual offender story I mentioned earlier, must be taken care of to a certain extent mainly from the perspective of personal information protection and privacy, is independent of that. On the other hand, regarding the cost burden or the scope of use, when asking what is the justification or reason for changing something even though it has already been used, for example, if what is published in PDF is automatically processed or machine-readable, the way it is used may change, and if the cost is reduced, the risk of unexpected use will increase, so I thought that we need to carefully look at that.

Thank you.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Lastly, I would like to move on to agenda item 3, "Schedule for future consideration." Please provide an explanation from the secretariat.

Takinoura Director: This is a summary of the discussions you have had so far and what needs to be done in the future. However, I recognize that there is a need to continue to consider major issues such as cost sharing, scope of use, private use, maps, how far it will be used in base registry for address, organization including maps and open data, and characters.

Going forward, I believe that it would be good if the Promotion Meeting itself is held once every one or two months from the summer onward to hear your opinions. This meeting may end for the time being, but I am thinking in this way.

Chairman Yasunen: .

Is this okay, ladies and gentlemen?

Well, we're running out of time, so that's all for today. Thank you very much for the lively discussion.

As originally planned, the draft of the First Public Basic Information Database Development and Improvement Plan was successfully completed. Thank you very much.

Lastly, I would like to ask the secretariat to contact you for administrative work.

Takinoura Director: Thank you very much. I think we had a very good discussion.

As for the agenda, the minutes will be made and released after you check them, and the materials will be released on the website after checking them a little.

As I mentioned earlier, I am vaguely thinking that the next meeting will be held after summer, so I will keep in touch with you.

That's all from the secretariat.

Chairman Yasunen: I see. Actually, I thought that the mission of this meeting was over when the draft was finalized, but that's not a problem.

With this, I would like to conclude the Third Forum on the Promotion of the Base Registry. I would like to thank you very much for your frank, active, and wide-ranging opinions, as always. This is the end of my presentation.

Thank you very much.