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 ".

Base Registry Fifth Meeting of the Advisory Group for Promotion

Last Updated:

Overview

Date and

Monday, March 30, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

US>

Held online

Agenda

  • Opening
  • Agenda
    • Future Policy on Real Estate-Based Registry in Light of Comprehensive Measures for the Acceptance of Foreign Nationals and Orderly Coexistence
    • The future of corporate base registry
    • Future policies of base registry for address
  • Adjournment

Material

Minutes, etc.

Attendees

Chairman

Junji Annen (Professor, Chuo University Law School)

Member

  • Hidemi Itayakoshi (Representative Director of DATALE Corporation)
  • Hiroshi Ito (Deputy Director of the Policy Department, New Economy Association)
  • Tatsuhiko Inadani
  • Yuuki Ogi (Data Advisor, Japan Digital Design Inc.)
  • Takafumi OCHIAI (Attorney-at-law, Atsumi & Sakai, foreign law joint enterprise)
  • Katsunori Kageyama (Executive Director (General Affairs), Japan Federation of Shiho-Shoshi Lawyer's Associations
  • Masakazu Masushima (Attorney at law, Mori Hamada & Matsumoto)
  • Hirokazu Minami (Manager, Yasuragi Measures Division, Health and Welfare Department, Tanabe City)
  • Naoyuki YANAGISAWA (Managing Director of Japan Federation of Land and House Investigators Associations)

Observer

  • Junko HIOKI (Director, Personal Information Protection Commission Office)
  • Takayuki Ikeda (Director, Resident Program Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • Haruki Kitamura (Chief of Civil Affairs Section II, Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau)
  • Hiroshi Tanaka (Manager, Commercial Affairs Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice
  • Yoshiko Nakanishi (Manager of Treasury Division, Ministry of Finance Financial Bureau)
  • Miho Kitama (Director of Real Estate Market Development Division, Real Estate and Construction Economics Bureau, Ministry of Land

Minutes

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen Thank you for calling. There is one member who has not shown up yet, but since the start time has passed, I would like to begin. Thank you very much for gathering today.
I would like to begin with the 5th Expert Meeting on Promotion of Base Registry.

Today, each member of the team is participating online.
I have also heard that you will not be attending today's meeting as an observer from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Municipal Affairs Division.
Then, I would like to ask the chairperson to proceed the proceedings from now on. Mr. Annen, thank you in advance.

Chairman Annen: Nakagawa Director, Thank you very much. Good morning.
Now, let's move onto the agenda. Today's agenda consists of the three items listed in the agenda distributed to you.
First of all, I would like to ask the Secretariat to explain Item (1) of the agenda, "Future Policy of Real Estate-Based Registry with Comprehensive Measures for the Acceptance of Foreign Nationals and Their Orderly Coexistence."

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen .
Please refer to Attachment 1. Regarding the future policy on real estate-based registry based on comprehensive measures for the acceptance of foreign nationals and their orderly coexistence, it may be a bit long, but in the previous fourth meeting, the discussion was closed to the public. This time, the discussion will be open to the public.

Please turn to the first page. I will omit the parts that overlap with what you saw last time, but I would like to mainly introduce the changes. First of all, the points that I would like you to discuss today have not changed much. The Comprehensive Measures for the Acceptance of Foreign Nationals and Orderly Coexistence were compiled in January this year, and it is written that this real estate based registry will be supported.

Please show me the next page. On page 2, which is related to the Base Registry in the Comprehensive Measures section, it states the current situation and issues, measures currently being implemented, and future issues. It states at the end that a mechanism for online access by administrative agencies is mainly under consideration in the measures that are currently being implemented, that the development of a property-based registry is a future issue, and that careful consideration will be given to the area to be disclosed.

Regarding the response policies of the comprehensive response measures, there is something that appears on Page 3, but I will omit it because it is almost duplicated. To remind you, I would like you to look at Page 4, which is also shown in the previous slide, but on the left and right of the slide, in the future consideration, as a response based on the comprehensive response measures such as land ownership by foreigners, can we consider the system in the figure on the right? If nationality information is added to the real estate registration system on the lower left of the figure on the right, when it is reflected in the real estate-based registry, it will be reflected in the yellow arrow that shows that each ministry and agency can refer to the nationality information. In addition, the various land-related ledgers held by each ministry and agency can be linked to the real estate-based registry, and at the very bottom, it can be shown to the people of Japan in a somewhat statistical and generalized manner.

On the next page, page 5, handling of personal information is also duplicated, so we will deal with it in this way. Please take a look at this.

Lastly, on pages 6 and 7, these two pages are newly displayed.

Please show me page 6. First, page 1, page 6 is the schedule. I think I did not show this last time, but the development of the database of property-based registry is now in progress, and as the first release, the map of the end of R9 is written. We are wondering if we can release something here, and as it is the second release in the middle of 2028, we are thinking if we can release the registration within 2028. The information on land ownership, which is at the bottom here, will reflect the data including nationality. After the release of the registration in 2028 is completed, the development of the data is planned to be reflected.

The seventh page at the end is about the policy effects. Regarding the policy effects of the property-based registry, which is also mentioned for the first time this time, due to the fact that there are so many policy effects, including the omission of attachments and the confirmation of registration information, I believe there is a total of 40.87 billion yen from 2028 to 1932 as shown in the lower right corner.

I was a bit hasty, but I would like to end my explanation. There are some overlaps. I was quite confused, but if you have any concerns, please let me know.
That's all from the office.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
If you have any comments or questions about this presentation, please feel free to ask.
This is a matter that was raised in the previous meeting. The "comprehensive response measures" mentioned here are the basic policy of the current administration or the Cabinet. Therefore, as far as I am aware, they have a restrictive meaning for us, and we are not in a position to discuss this issue. Is that correct?

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen Thank you very much.
In that sense, it is an important point, but I did not provide an explanation. As you said, the comprehensive response measures should be basically treated as a given. It has been decided by the Council of Relevant Ministers, and the intention of each ministry and agency has been included. In that sense, I think it would be good to see how it can be realized, and whether it is sufficient, including institutional and systemic aspects.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
What do you think?
Kageyama-san, your hands are up. Please come in.

Kageyama Member: Thank you very much. My name is Kageyama.
With regard to the future use of the property-based registry, we believe that it is necessary to carefully design the nationality information as described in the materials. Therefore, we believe that it is important to comply with principle of least privilege regarding the scope of those who can access it.
Although the disclosure of information on land ownership is based on the premise of statistics, the number of population may be small in so-called underpopulated areas, and it may be possible to identify individuals to a certain extent. Therefore, in order to prevent unintended privacy issues from occurring, it is necessary to be careful when considering the regional unit.
As a confirmation, regarding the image of utilization on page 4 of the slide, it is expected that real estate registration information including map information will be set in the real estate base registry. Am I correct in understanding that the direction will be to limit cooperation and reference to farmland ledgers, etc., for which the current status is grasped? In addition, I think it will be related to Architecture in Material 3, but what kind of information will be held in each base registry, whether the information to be held will be enhanced, or whether the information itself of each database will be lightened and whether it will be a mechanism that can be referred to each infrastructure by the information exchange system referred to in Article 22 of Basic Act on the Formation of a Digital Society, I think that these points will be important in considering future operation. It was confirmed from the viewpoint that it is necessary to consider what kind of criteria should be used to organize the information that is sufficient for cooperation and reference regarding the data held by the base registry.
That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
I would now like to ask the Secretariat to respond after we have heard a full range of statements from members.
Mr. Itaya, do you have your hands up?

Member ITAYAKOSHI: , I'm sorry, I didn't mention it, I just wrote a comment. I wonder if the order is okay. I pointed it out last time, so I don't have anything particular about today's issue. The part of authority restrictions, as you mentioned, depends on whether or not you can Architecture role-based authority control, and I strongly recommended it twice. That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
I'm sorry for changing your turn. Mr. Ogi and then Mr. Inadani, please. Mr. Ogi, please.

Fan Member: This is the same as what Mr. Itaya Koshi just said. It may be difficult to say that it is easy for administrative agencies and citizens to access appropriately in the future issues on page 2. However, if we try to actually do it, we will classify the operations of administrative agencies to some extent, assign roles to people involved in the operations, and control access on a role-by-role basis. This is often done at financial institutions. Therefore, I think it is difficult and important to create a good mechanism both in terms of human resources and systems. I understand that access control on even more sensitive information among personal information is necessary. Moreover, if we create it here, it should be made so that it can be developed in other places. Therefore, I think it could be a matter of defining it separately here. That is very important.
On the third page, there is an arrow in blue that says it will be added as internal information for real estate registration. It says that it will be limited to cases where applicants are obliged to submit their nationality in the procedures under the jurisdiction of each administrative agency. However, I do not understand whether the administrative agencies have the same view point. I think that there are both national and municipal governments in each administrative agency. I think that it is a premise that if the procedures are decided based on the law, the view points should be the same. I think that it will be very different depending on whether we proceed on the premise that they should be the same or whether we should look at it once. I think I should be careful about this.
That's 2 points for me.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much. It's going to be a big job.

Fan Member: I think it's a good idea.

Chairman Annen: Let's do it.
Dr. Inadani, what do you think?

Inadani: It is somewhat related to the points you have just given, but I understand that we will create a registry from the perspective of supporting what is required of the overall response policies. It has been discussed several times, but I think there was also a discussion about combining several databases so that we can see who the real owners are. In relation to such response policies and usage methods, I am just summarizing what I have received from several people, but the problem is how much information needs to be combined and viewed in this base registry, which is related to exhaustiveness.
The other point is the area of mandating, which has been the subject of discussion. Bearing in mind that the scope of mandating may change in the future according to the response policy, I believe that Architecture also needs to create a structure that can flexibly respond to changes in the scope of mandating, such as how much access will be restricted. Put simply, as this response policy evolves, it is possible that what will be collected to what extent and how it will be provided with access restrictions will change. If we do not consider the prospects to a certain extent in advance based on this point, we are concerned that if we make a fixed decision, there is a possibility that we will be in trouble later. I believe this is something that is naturally under consideration, but I would like to point out a few points.
That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
However, if we expand it too much, we may not be able to call it a property-based registry at all. I think there is no need to worry about it now because it is far in the future.

Ochiai: Thank you very much.
Today, as we are discussing difficult issues from the beginning, I feel like I am waking up from the morning, but I thought again that we are talking about how to design the scope of access control required as a mechanism. In the case of commercial registration, there is also a matter of privacy, and there was an address issue, for example, so how to display such matters of representatives has been changing recently, and this time it was about foreigners. There are things that may happen, such as foreign exchange regulations and anti-money laundering measures. In that request, there may be an issue that it is better to mention or not to mention again. There are some other contents that have already been discussed in the area equivalent to such a base registry, and we do not know the environmental changes in the future, but I raised an example of several themes that may be related to this. In that case, in terms of what needs to be done on the system side, I thought that it is not a form of deciding who can access at zero one. In other words, in this case, regarding the nationality of foreigners, as I mentioned earlier, about the address, I think you did not think that you would have to hide the address several decades ago. There are such things, so you can remove specific items from the display, and you can manage access to them. I think there is a point that how many types can coexist to a certain extent, but I think this is the minimum necessary on the system side.
As for the scope of people who can access the system, I think it will be handled in relation to the necessary work for foreigners this time, but I think the scope of necessary work will change again. If you make it possible to perform several types of authentication, if you grant IDs and passwords to people who have authenticated outside the system, it may not be necessary to bring in all the contents on the system side. However, I thought that it is important to deal with the scope of access management through authentication on the system side, and that there may be multiple types and that it may happen in the future.
In the end, if you integrate all the databases in the same place, I think it will become heavy, and there will be cases where consistency cannot be maintained depending on the object. In that case, as we have seen in the medical field, I thought that it would be better to develop something like an identifier, and to create a system that can at least link things that are similar in the end, and not to completely move them to the base registry, so that the burden of recreating them would be less.
Sorry for the long explanation, but that's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Mr. Masushima, what do you think?

Member Masujima: Thank you for Thank you very much.
My understanding is that we are talking about the essence of the base registry as a whole. This is a base, so I think we are talking about foreigners as one of the applications of using this.
In that case, if we create things focusing on foreigners, the problem of what to do with the rest will surely come up. This time, we will create something to give access to local governments or the public, which I mentioned earlier. Is it always public? In order to achieve some national purpose, for example, we have to look at financial institutions, which is a typical case of so-called money laundering. Even the entity who actually has to look at it will surely change depending on the object. If we don't have the ability to deal with such things, it will not be worth the name of a base registry. This time, we will do one thing with access to the family register, but I think it is necessary to think about what kind of Architecture we should make while considering the ability to expand.
Also, as you all have said, it is a loosely coupled system that connects to various places and pulls in data. Flexibility is more important than strictness. Just because you have seen it here, it does not mean that you can understand everything unambiguously. There are various things, and we try to capture them as much as possible, but that is not enough to capture them. This is the same structure as money laundering. In that sense, it does not mean that we will be able to understand everything uniformly if we see this. It is possible to give access rights on the assumption that everything can be understood, and it is necessary to conduct more risk-based surveys. So, on the assumption that such cases can occur, I think it is important to create a system that is loose or not necessarily strict.
That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Did you hear everything?
Director Nakagawa, there are various points that have been pointed out. Just a while ago, Professor Ochiai was saying that it would be difficult, and since Professor Ochiai is saying that it would be difficult, I think it would be really difficult. At this point, if you have any thoughts on this, what do you think?

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen Thank you very much.
I think we had two important discussions. Regarding the topic of statistics given by Professor Kageyama, I think there were two main points. One was that and the other was the role base given by everyone. For example, I heard about the role of each ministry and the financial sector. I think there were two main points: how to disclose information and how to restrict access. Both are very important points.
The first point is the establishment of statistics. This issue has actually been discussed in the comprehensive response measures. We call it the Office for Foreign Residents, which is a new organization established in Cabinet Secretariat. There is a draft of the response guidelines on page 3. The next task is to carefully consider the method of disclosing information on land ownership at the regional level from the perspective of anonymization. I think you pointed out that both issues are necessary as the next tasks, and this is exactly what we will do from now on. Including the ministries and agencies in charge of the system, there is a deep-rooted opinion that this should be done carefully because small local governments and underpopulated areas will be truly identified. I think this should be addressed firmly regardless of national or local governments, including local governments. In that sense, I think that a system should be developed so that a certain level of anonymization can be achieved, although it is called statistics.
The role-based and ID management information you gave us will be shown on the next 4th page. The property-based registry is basically owned by various ministries and agencies, such as the real estate registry of Ministry of Justice, the ledger of the National Land Use Planning Act of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, the Forest Act and the Agricultural Land Act of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and local governments. They have the master data, and if they want to cooperate with us in this way, they can say they will do so. This is how the system is built. They can get a copy of the property-based registry and cooperate with us.
In that sense, the management of IDs, passes, and other information, such as the management of local governments and ministries, for example, the management of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, will have to be done with the ministries and agencies that have administrative work and ledgers according to their authority. In that sense, we will organize this from now on. We will firmly raise the issues that you have just pointed out in coordination with the ministries and agencies, and discuss whether it is really okay.
All I have said so far is that we will work on it from now on. Is that all?

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
It is difficult. I think it was probably the opinion of most people that it should be made extensible. However, if it is made extensible, various problems will come out again. It is a difficult problem that Professor Ochiai mentioned. I keenly felt that I have to work on it from now on. Thank you very much.

Now, let's move on to the next agenda item. The second item on the agenda is "The Future of corporate base registry and the Caribbean." I would like to ask the secretariat to explain this as well.

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen Thank you very much.
This is Handout 2. This is also based on the contents of the previous discussion in public, so I would like to explain while omitting some of the duplicated contents.

I would like to ask you to look at page 1. Today, we would like you to discuss about corporate base registry. We would like you to discuss about the way things should be in the future from the two aspects of (I) and (ii). The first point is the current information-sharing mechanism within administrative organizations. The second point is how to meet expectations for data provision in the future, including private sector. We would like you to discuss each of these.

First of all, I would like to ask about the current information sharing mechanism among administrative agencies. Please answer 3. Through information sharing within the administration, on the diagram on the left showing before use and on the diagram on the right showing after use, if it is possible for Ministry of Justice and related government offices to refer to and cooperate with corporate base registry, in that sense, for the people of Japan and corporate business operators, there will be no need to attach certificates. That is the aim of corporate base registry.

Please take a look at page 4. From here, I would like to introduce a new topic. The one I mentioned earlier, which is based on corporate base registry, is the back-office collaboration as written in (2) below. As a system that is still in place, as written in (1) above, information can be shared electronically via individuals. This is a system-related matter. For example, in Ministry of Justice, downloading the information and uploading it to the cloud when a corporation makes an application. The person at the government agency that will use the application downloads what has been uploaded to the cloud. In this way, information can be shared electronically. That is a possible pattern.

In fact, both (I) and (ii) have good and bad aspects, and this table on page 5 compares the two patterns. Information coordination through individuals is the pattern (I) that you saw earlier, and when it is said that there are good aspects, good aspects are written in blue, and when it is said that it may be a disadvantage, it is written in red. When it comes to information coordination through individuals, for example, it is good that there is no need to respond to systems or to develop systems because they use the cloud. However, in terms of convenience, for corporate business operators who apply, obtaining and submitting electronic files will remain, and the ministries and agencies that hold the data will have to issue certificates, which can be said to be the same as before.
On the other hand, although corporate base registry is the back-office linkage of the right side, the right side is just the opposite in that sense. Although institutional measures and system improvement, etc. are required, I think that there is a tradeoff relationship between advantages and disadvantages in the sense that the issuance of certificates is completely unnecessary and obtaining and submitting electronic files is also unnecessary.

On the next page, Page 6, in this situation, at least as a way of thinking about using the mechanism of the base registry in back-office cooperation, how about using it as a base registry? I raised three points. Focusing on these things, using a base registry would be good. That's what I thought.
The first one is that the exhaustiveness of data is important, and exhaustiveness means that all corporate data are covered. For example, what is the data of a corporation that has a food sanitation business license? Use cases that can be answered immediately fall under this, I think.
The second point is an incentive to reduce the cost of information provision by regulatory authorities. In this case, if there is an incentive for Mr. Ministry of Justice and others to reduce the cost of providing information to various people, it may be easier for them to handle the base registry mechanism.
And the third is that, although other ministries and agencies may be involved and local governments may also be involved, it is more efficient to use corporate base registry than to create individual mechanisms.
For these three things, I think it would be better to use a base registry.

This is the first question, and the second question is how we will respond to the expectations of private sector for information provision. Please turn to page 8. I will omit this, but this is the material you looked at last time. I believe private sector asked if there is a system in which you can obtain permissions and notifications in a list, and on the right side of the slide, you asked if there is a procedure in which you can obtain information by paying a fee for the open data and information disclosure systems, which are the only government systems available.

For this reason, as shown on page 9, regarding the base registry, data held by administrative organizations will be provided through an API that connects screens and systems. However, as a data type, it will be something like open data, and in addition to the data provided by the administration, data will be provided to private business operators who pay a specific fee. We are considering the establishment of a system that can provide such data.

This time, I think it will be discussed on an open basis, but I would like you to confirm or let me know what you noticed.
That's all from the administration office.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
If you have any questions or comments about this briefing, please let us know.
Mr. Itaya, please go ahead.

Member ITAYAKOSHI: There are two points.
The first point is, I think there was a page on the concept of examining the mechanism of the base registry, I think it was on page 6, I'm afraid if I just don't know, but if I have the consent of the person, is it not all OK? The reason is that in the last time I participated in the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's Digital Services Conference, I conducted a survey of Tokyo residents (N = 2,400) at the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's Digital Services Conference, which is also included in the publicly available data, and 80% of users answered that they would allow sharing if it was directly linked to their convenience. However, when there is data that is about 20-25% on very sensitive information that is not directly linked to convenience, such as annual income, and such things that are necessary, I thought that there would be a considerable number of people who would definitely want to do so if it was OK for the person himself, including the company. I wanted to know whether there were legal issues and institutional reasons or other reasons.
The second point is simple, so I would like to tell you about it first. It is about the handling of data on page 9. Regarding this, I would like to ask the private sector to consider a consumption model, in other words, a consumption model in which only the amount used is consumed. That was the message.
That's all for now.

Chairman Annen: I thought I would ask the secretariat after hearing your comments in general, but I think it would be better to clarify the first point, which is about legislation. Mr. Nakagawa, could you reply?

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen Thank you very much.
First of all, with regard to the information to be handled, it is relatively possible to disclose information that is on a public disclosure basis, but there are cases where it is not. Also, there are cases where the system is in place to a certain extent, and when there is such a request, the content of the request will be answered. However, as Mr. Itaya Koshi mentioned earlier, in many cases, the legal and institutional aspects have been decided.
As for Ministry of Justice, in that sense, regarding the corporate registration of corporate base registry, I think that the development of the system in accordance with the procedures will be the first priority. From there, I understand that Mr. Ministry of Justice and the relevant ministries and agencies will work on whether or not it is possible to review the system when several systems are developed and how they are used.

Member ITAYAKOSHI: I see. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: I think Mr. Itaya Koshi is well aware, but my understanding is that the legal scheme for protecting personal information held by administrative agencies does not necessarily provide for disclosure if the individual in question has given consent. This is because it is extremely difficult to obtain consent one by one in the first place, and after all, we must decide on a standard and handle it. My understanding is that it is divided into what cannot be disclosed and what can be disclosed, so I think it will be a subject for future consideration.
However, I think it is certain that this has the characteristic of being held by an administrative agency.

Member ITAYAKOSHI: I see.

Chairman Annen: I think that was a big problem from the beginning.

Member ITAYAKOSHI: I see. It's heavy. I understand.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Now, let's hear from Mr. Minami and Mr. Kageyama in order.

South Member: South.
This time, corporate base registry was opened to the public, and several municipalities and others have already logged in and are now trying to use it. I believe that they made a very good product. Thank you for your hard work.
As you said earlier, I believe that local governments are now considering, for example, the omission of attached documents for Corporate Tax in each city, town, and village. However, I would appreciate it if you could spread such ideas, or if you could publish such good examples in the future, and create a system that is not something that can be done here, but something that can be done in cities, towns, and villages where corporations can go through various procedures.
That's all from me.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Kageyama, Professor Inadani will speak first.

Kageyama Member: Thank you very much. My name is Kageyama.
I am very pleased that the corporate base registry has been put into operation, and I would like to thank everyone for their efforts.
Although it was just launched on March 24, I would like to ask for your reference if you have received any comments at this point.
Regarding the request for official use described in "corporate base registry as information sharing within the administration" on page 3 of the document, I think it may not be effective if it is not the latest information, but for example, it may not be possible to refer to the latest information due to circumstances such as being in the process of registration. I feel that it is necessary to consider the handling of any errors that occur as a result of not being able to refer to the latest information due to time lag, etc.
It is my understanding that the "Patterns of Future Information Coordination" on page 4 describes communication via the cloud and processing at the base registry. However, from the business operator's perspective, there may be opinions that it is easier to proceed with back-office coordination through the base registry rather than uploading materials to the cloud. In such a case, I would like to confirm whether or not it is possible for business operators to choose whether or not to process this case on the base registry side.
Regarding the information provided to the private sector on the last page, I understand that confirmation of information on beneficial owners has recently become more important day by day, including in relation to money laundering, which was raised as a topic in Document 1, and especially in relation to the FATF. For example, if it becomes possible to refer to information on beneficial owners within a limited scope, I believe it would be effective from the perspective of Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds.
That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
As you pointed out, the launch of the corporate base registry was a truly memorable event. Thank you very much.
Next, Mr. Inadani, please.

Inadani: Thank you very much.
This is related to what you just pointed out, and it is ultimately related to the previous agenda item. The issue of how much information will be included is related to how much information will be maintained and used as the base registry. What is important is to have a dynamic image that the base registry itself will become more user-friendly as this point changes. Of course, based on that, I understand that you have organized the idea of considering the mechanism of the base registry in Page 6, but if it remains as it is, it may seem a little static. If the idea that it is better to have information on the true ruler, which you just pointed out, spreads more and more in the future, I think it will naturally lead to a discussion on whether it should be included. This is a system that is not static but dynamic. However, when it comes to the point of how much it should be expanded, if it becomes clear that there is a standard shown here regarding whether it should be expanded or not, I think it will be continuous with the previous discussion and it will become clear from what perspective the base registry will be developed. Therefore, I think it would be better to add that nuance.
The other point is somewhat related to the first question by Mr. Itaya Koshi, and it is also related to the answer by Mr. Annen. In the case of administrative agencies, it is possible to add the purpose of use without the consent of the person, probably bearing in mind that legitimate purposes and some kind of data governance can be done properly. I remember that I did it with a lot of ingenuity. However, considering that the overall concept of data protection, such as the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, has changed to a risk-based one, I feel that it will be a very subtle writing here. However, I feel that there is a possibility that there will be a gradation in whether it can be said that it is not necessary to respond at all as a system because it is mediated by the person. In that sense, I was a little concerned that the points organized as advantages and disadvantages of this part may have a gradation from the current concept of data protection and data security.
That's all from me. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much. That's right.
Mr. Ogi, what do you think?

Fan Member: Thank you very much.
I also have two questions. First, I am not sure if the figure on page 3 is correct, but in this document, Digital Agency does not appear, which is the same as in Document 1. I am wondering if it is disguised as a corporate BR. What I want to say is that it would be better to clarify the division of roles and responsibilities between Ministry of Justice and data providers in particular. It would be better to say that it would be possible to provide such information to users. This is already being released as a picture, so I understand that it is done to a certain extent, but I think it would be better to make it clear that it should be kept to this extent even if the use is expanded in the future. This is my first question.
The second point is on page 6. As you have mentioned earlier, I think this is very important. More specifically, I think this is not limited to corporate base registry. It is written as one of the pages in corporate base registry on how to consider the utilization of the corporate base registry system. Whether it is real estate, address, or something that will come out in the future, I wonder if this idea is universal. As far as I hear the discussion earlier, I have a feeling that (iv) will include whether there will be a knockout in the sharing of information within the administration of data, but I think that is not enough in principle.
Therefore, I think that we can go back to that point in a kind of Bible when we get lost, and that we can always keep it in the background as something that is shared by everyone, and that we can proceed with future discussions and so on in the end.
That's 2 points for me.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Mr. Masushima, please come in.

Member Masujima: Thank you for Thank you very much.
First of all, regarding corporate base registry, last Friday, I have been following X of Digi Agency for a long time, and there was an announcement, and there was a lot of excitement around it, and in particular, there were many people who said that this time at last this day would be held for corporate base registry, and I thought it was grateful, which is my first comment.
On page 5, you mentioned that there is a system called "Merideme." This is what the government said. When we talk about "Merideme," it is probably the users. In this case, both users and users may be government offices. But the fact that we have to deal with users and develop systems for data-holding ministries and agencies may be evaluated as a disadvantage. I am not sure about that, and I think it will be considered as a disadvantage in the sense that it is troublesome. I am a little concerned about whether it is a disadvantage in general or not in the first place. If that is not the case, I feel that the right side is all blue. I think it will be said because it is written based on what people really think, but I also felt that it is true if I go straight to it.
There is one more point. As you mentioned earlier, whether or not to revise it, I feel that there are many things that can be done more flexibly than before thanks to the establishment of this system. Therefore, as you mentioned earlier, there are many cases where such things have not been done so far or such rules have not been issued, but I think that there are many things that can be done by the existence of this system. Earlier, some business operators said that it would be good if they said so. Although there was certainly a discussion about personal information of administrative agencies, I feel that it may not be true for all cases when it is difficult to do so. I feel that there is a certain amount of evidence that there is no reason not to disclose what users themselves say they want to disclose. Therefore, my second point is that I thought it would be good to consider a step that assumes the existence of this system in terms of how to create a system and how to create rules.
The third point, which will be mentioned later, and which you may have mentioned earlier, is that if the basic registry, such as real estate, corporation, and address, is divided among the officials in charge at the government office, it will be vertically divided. As you have mentioned earlier, the essence of the issue is the same, and I think there are various ways of expressing it, so I think it is better to sort out something in common. I think there is something like an emphasis on principles or the word bible, which you mentioned earlier. I do not know what it is at the beginning, but when considering each issue, there will definitely be a discussion about whether this issue and this issue will be treated in the same way or whether the way of thinking will be the same, although the subject is different. I felt that it would be good if the process of absorbing, abstracting, and converting into principles could be included in the overall process. I thought that would speed up the consideration.
That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Ito, Mr. Ochiai, please speak.

Prof. Ito: Thank you, Thank you very much for the opportunity.
As a member of the private sector, it is quite difficult to point out various points in detail, but if such a thing is created, I would like to consider how it can be used while observing moderation, so I will speak from that point.
You mentioned the choice of digital locker or registry. The private sector would appreciate it if you could consider establishing a base registry, rather than a digital locker, which will probably be based on the idea of making an application each time, so that the system can be connected at all times and necessary information can be obtained when necessary.
In any case, Priority Plan for the Realization of the Digital Society in 2021 lists the Principles for the Use of Common Digital Infrastructure as digital principles, and states that the Base Registry is intended to be used as a digital common infrastructure by the public and private sectors. Of course, the administrative perspective is important, but I think the primary perspective for the private sector is what kind of services it can provide while riding on that foundation, and how it can contribute to society. I would like to see corporate base registry organized from that perspective.
That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ochiai, what do you think?

Ochiai: Thank you very much. I would also like to make a few comments.
The first point is, as you can see this page, from this page, it seems that only paper is mentioned in the description of convenience, but in the sense of structured processing, I thought that it would probably be more difficult to link data through the person. Here, the red part is not a back-office link, and I thought that in many cases, it would be more troublesome to do it in this way. In that sense, I think that sometimes we have no choice but to do it through the person, but in the sense of mechanical processing of the overall system, there are many cases where we have no choice but to increase the extra load at this point.
As for the second point, on page 6, I think that how to design incentives for the entities that will receive data is extremely important. Even if there are incentives for cost reduction, it will be difficult to realize them, so I think something needs to be materialized. Otherwise, it will be difficult to obtain cooperation. Also, this part is premised on the exchange of basic information between the relevant ministries and agencies so that it can be analyzed firmly when the AI is used in the government as a perspective. It will also contribute to growth strategies related to AI, and I thought that there should be a little more connection where a budget can be provided for system investment by Digital Agency and the relevant competent ministries and agencies, so I hope that you will consider this point when you organize it.
The third point is about the provision to the private sector on page 9. I am not sure if this will be done immediately in general, but some European laws and regulations databases have already been released as MCPs. I am not sure if this base registry alone will be enough, including APIs, but the Agency for Digital will release them, especially some of them are written as open data, so I think it would be good for you to consider how to keep this in mind when discussing the issue. I believe there will be limited data provided by the private sector, but depending on the content, it will be basically based on how much access a person can have, even if it is not the original system. On the other hand, at the time of the working group of the Digital Ad Hoc Committee, which was also the source of the discussion at this review meeting, we organized our views on privacy. I believe we are also talking about foreigners, and I think we should understand the system as to whether there is anything to be slightly revised there. We also discussed the issue of real estate, but there will not be many kinds of rules, including those for corporations, and I think it is important to organize it as simply as possible. Of course, I would like you to consider from the perspective of preparing a system that is as simple as possible and can be automated, while keeping in mind the original relationship between each laws and regulations and the restriction on the use of the database, as well as the protection of confidentiality of information such as privacy, which I mentioned earlier.
That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Did you hear everything?
Then, Mr. Director Nakagawa, if there is a response at this point, I would like to ask for your cooperation.

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the extensive discussion this time.
First, members from Minami and Kageyama talked about the start of corporate base registry. Thank you very much. Thanks to you, we started accepting applications from users on March 24, and we have registered them. It was a little embarrassing, and although there were some errors, we have resolved the errors and are continuing to accept applications.
We will be able to search for registration information, but including the defects that occurred this time, we are reinvestigating whether the function has been done properly, and the information search will also be released next month, so we will contact you when it is decided. I think we will finally get a response at that time, so in that sense, we are at the stage of accepting applications, but we have received positive feedback like that, and we have received very grateful social media reactions such as visits to the Legal Affairs Bureau being discontinued, which I am very grateful for. I will continue to work hard until the launch, so I would like to ask for your support.
I would like to give you some answers. It is related to page 4, which says that a base registry is better in that sense than the cloud processing given by Professor Kageyama. It is also related to page 5. In that sense, the current information coordination through individuals is a case in which digitization is faster. In that sense, at this point, I think it may not be possible to use a large system as a use case. Therefore, I have sorted them out. In the future, I think there will be a base registry. I think it was also given by Ito members. I wonder if they want it to be executed by a base registry rather than every time. In that sense, I think the direction will naturally shift to a base registry once the system and system for back office coordination are established. However, at this point, keeping in mind that information coordination is done by various means, I have sorted them out as shown on page 6. I think this is a good way to consider the mechanism of a base registry.
Mr. Ogi said that this is very universal. It is not limited to corporate base registry. In that sense, real estate and e-mail addresses can be used universally. That is what he said. In that sense, I think there will be a repetition of generalizing the database and putting it into individual databases. It is true that this is an advantage of collecting and maintaining the good points of the database. I think that real estate and e-mail addresses that will appear later will be used in an integrated manner. Therefore, I would like to consider this system with the idea that it can be applied to other systems. I think that this is the basic form. However, I would like to apply it to other base registries and consider whether it is true or not. First of all, for corporations, I would like to proceed with the idea of whether it can be applied to other systems based on this organization. Thank you very much.
In addition, Mr. Kageyama mentioned the FATF and Mr. Ogi mentioned on page 3 that there is no Digital TV Agency between the FATF and the regulatory bodies. In that sense, I wonder what Digital Agency's position is. In that sense, Digital Agency, including the regulatory bodies and personal data held by each ministry and agency, will make recommendations to them, such as that it can be done digitally, and that it may be possible to apply the AI as a new service, as Mr. Ochiai mentioned earlier. In that sense, I cannot help but give them advice.
However, on the other hand, we will be able to create our own system accordingly. We will discuss with the person in charge of the institution to see if it would be a good idea to implement the system, and we will be able to create a system and present it to them. In that sense, although it has not appeared here at the moment in light of the considerations of the institution, it is a recommendation that will mediate between them. In that sense, it has been decided in the establishment law, but Digital Agency would like to implement it in that way as a play style.
It is not difficult to say whether or not there is a demarcation point of responsibility. However, it is up to each institution to decide who is given information, who is responsible, and who is given an ID card. We will always do this, and there will be rapid changes. Member Inadani said that by sharing an image of a user-friendly system, the system will become more user-friendly by replacing the paper-based system with an electronic system. I would like to fully demonstrate my mandate and work with you to create such a system.
Also, I think there were quite a lot of discussions on page 5. Regarding the assignment of the advantages and disadvantages, I would like to sort out the responses to the system from the perspective of the system administrator, and the people who have the data think that it is necessary to develop a system or not, so they spend a lot of budget and cost. However, from the convenience point of view, the government agency that holds the data said that it is the same as before in terms of information coordination, but I wrote that it is a hassle from the government's point of view that certificates must be issued. I understand that the user wants to have cooperation with the back office on the right, and all of them are blue. From both perspectives, the system builder is the same as the user. In the sense that the advantages and disadvantages of both the user and the government are the same, I wrote it with a slight bias, but I think it is not necessarily red or blue from either perspective. On the other hand, I would be very grateful if you could understand that I did this to realize it.
Lastly, I would like to ask you a few questions. On page 9, you mentioned open data, information provided within the government, and limited provision to the private sector. Here as well, while organizing what can be made into open data and the protection of personal information, which can be limited to a certain extent, with the people of the ministries and agencies with jurisdiction over the system, since it is related to the system that the private sector can provide such things, I would like to ask you while talking with the ministries and agencies with jurisdiction over the system, and although it may be a long story, I would like to ask you a question while thinking that we will gradually work on it so that it can be organized by multiplying the data type and the specified people. I firmly felt that such things are required and that there is a need for it, and I felt that we must do it as soon as possible.
Thank you very much.
About this much. I wonder if it's okay.

Chairman Annen: I think it should be okay.

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much. Indeed, I can really feel it. You are right.
A while ago, there were many people who recommended the back office collaboration, and I also heard that. However, it is not common that all of the players can slide into production without any burden, so I was wondering if how to distribute it rationally will be a future issue.
Next, I would like to move on to item (3) of the agenda, "Future Policies of the base registry for address Government." I would also like to ask the Secretariat to explain this.

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen . I would like to explain base registry for address's policies going forward.
What I would like you to discuss today is on page 2. Until the previous meeting, you discussed how to maintain information at lower levels than Machiaza. In particular, at the previous fourth meeting, you pointed out that it would be appropriate to proceed with step-by-step efforts based on the actual circumstances of local governments. In addition, I believe that you received three broad opinions: that we should start with what is possible, rather than something that is perfect from the beginning, and that there may be misunderstandings if we do not clearly convey the quality of data, which does not determine the relationship of rights. Regarding this, I have organized the Architecture and other areas that we should aim for, and I would like you to confirm them and discuss them this time.

Next page, please. We received many opinions on the content and quality of the data to be developed. We also received various opinions from a broad perspective, such as from Mr. Ito, who said that room numbers would be necessary, and whether this would be the case in the future. He also pointed out that it is not accurate and that we should start from what we can do.
I would like to ask about the response policies on the right side of the table. I sorted out two things, including what you mentioned, but not everything can be resolved at once, and I thought it would be good to proceed with what we can do now and improve the current situation. For example, with regard to things like arbitrary coordinates, even where public coordinates have not yet been prepared, we will prepare data by showing that it does not officially prove the boundaries of parcels and the scope of ownership, or by making assumptions. Also, with regard to building shapes, I think it would be good to proceed with the development of representative points as the initial response policy.

Next, regarding the use of taxation information such as parcel number maps, as I believe Mr. Minami mentioned, he pointed out that it is necessary to organize it because the criteria for handling it are not clear in relation to confidentiality obligations under tax laws. I organized the response policies on the right side of the table. When we checked the response with the Autonomous Taxation Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, we received a reply that we believe that local governments are responding based on the purport of some precedents that exist.

Regarding this judicial precedent, on the next three pages, there is a judicial precedent of the Osaka High Court. Specifically, this is the gray square above. It is a case in which the information disclosure request was made by the Local Tax Bureau of Nishinomiya City, and the information was not disclosed. In a word, this is a case in which the judgment was finalized in the form that disclosure is appropriate at the stage of finalization of the judgment. Regarding what was indicated at the top of the items in the square below that are not classified as secrets, I understand that it was indicated that the land area, numbering status, location, and shape are not classified as secrets because they are scheduled to be disclosed based on the real estate registration. In that sense, I think it would be good to treat these items as those that can be disclosed rather than secrets in the base registry.

I would like to move on to the next topic. Page 5 is about the demonstration project. Regarding this, in that sense, it is a step-by-step initiative based on the actual situation of local governments based on the opinions received. Regarding the demonstration project, as shown in the figure on the left, the configuration of the demonstration project is the development of a common system shown in blue, and the computerization of the residence registration ledger shown in the figure on the right, which will be included in this common system. The computerization of the residence registration ledger will be included in the common system of this common system development, and local governments on the left will verify their operations. There is a business scheme on the right, and I would like to engage in this type of relationship with each business operator and local public entity.

Regarding the schedule of this demonstration project on page 6, in fiscal 2025, in that sense, the fiscal year until tomorrow, I will make a public call, and in the next fiscal year, that is, the fiscal year from April 1 of this year, we will digitize the residence registration ledger and develop a common system. We will have local governments conduct operational verification from fiscal 2027, and I am thinking of conducting operational verification and considering future policies.

We will demonstrate this schedule, and the results of the public call are shown on page 7 on the next page. I believe that there was very high interest thanks to you, and we received applications from a total of 125 organizations. In the table on the left, there is a section on the number of selected organizations. When divided into three blocks by the number of blocks, there are more than 1,100, 500 to less than 1,100, and less than 500. We classified them into these three categories including large and small, and selected them for each regional block accordingly. In that sense, we set variations by size such as large, medium, and small, and by regions. We selected 25 organizations with high scores, and as shown in the table on the right, we scored whether they could provide a lot number current situation map or background map as selection criteria, whether they could implement it throughout the city as an implementation system, and how well they had an electronic system. We scored each block on a scale of 20 points.

The next page, page 8, shows the implementation organizations of the demonstration project, and the list on the left shows the selected organizations, so there are 25 organizations.
The list on the right is a group that said they would like to voluntarily participate in business verification with a common system even if they do not digitize it. With the cooperation of such local governments, I would like to start a project to see if it can be used in the actual field.

On the next page, page 10, about the future policy, in this demonstration, what local governments will see is exactly the image of this screen. As you discussed last time, on top of the map, by overlaying something like a lot number map with a layer structure, when they see which houses will be built this time, where the numbers will be assigned, this is the system we have in mind. If you click on it, you can access the property-based registry and see what kind of registration has been made. I think it would be a good system.

The image of the system configuration to realize such a system is shown on the next page, page 11. In that sense, as I think you will see here, I think it would be good to have a system configuration in which various systems that contain information from Machiaza and below on the left side are included in base registry for address, and the real estate registration system is directly connected so that people in government officials can see it. In addition, we will consider promoting the provision of residence indication information and lot number information, including coordinates, to private sector. This is the proposal.

The next 12 pages are countermeasures. This is also similar to what you saw last time. As shown on the left side of the table organized as countermeasures, there are data such as block code, house number, and lot number as types of information. Countermeasures differ depending on the circumstances of each local government. Some are managed on paper, some have introduced part or all of the system, and some have public coordinates and some have arbitrary coordinates for lot number. Therefore, measures for each are organized and each related organization is shown in the table.

The next page, page 13, is a comparison of the map data kept by the registry office and the current map of lot numbers. Although there is a combination with the information determined by the Supreme Court earlier, the data equipped with sections, numbering, location, and shape are consistent with the current map of lot numbers. Therefore, this page shows whether it is possible to handle such data on a public basis and establish a system.

The next page, page 14, is the future schedule. There are R7, R8, and R9 for real estate-based registry development. As you saw earlier, pilot development and demonstration will be conducted in the form of R8 and R9, and I think they will be unified in base registry for address.

The next page (page 15) shows the policy effects of systemization, as shown in a tree diagram for each factor. We are aiming for a cumulative total of 6.7 billion yen over five years, with direct effects of 1.5 billion yen for local governments and ripple effects of 5.2 billion yen for private sector. This shows that efficiency can be realized in each of the factors (1) to (4) and (1) to (5).

The rest of the document is for reference, but I believe it is a list of what you have seen in the past. Some of the figures in the document have been updated around page 31. In that sense, it is helpful, but some of the data has been updated, so please refer to that.

The explanation was long, but that's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
If you have any comments or questions about the explanation, please feel free to ask.
First, Mr. Masushima, please go ahead.

Member Masujima: Thank you for Thank you very much.
I would like to make a comment first since I have to appear after about half an hour. I think it is a very important trial that base registry for address will conduct a demonstration while confirming the access and convenience of local governments. The choice of local governments will vary depending on the scale, so I think the form of gathering people of various scales and absorbing their opinions is also very excellent.
Last time, you told me that large local governments could do it on their own if they had the money, but in many cases, that was not the case, and they did not have enough money to cover it. You explained that the aim is to solve the problems of large, medium-sized, and small local governments in this way. I am very satisfied with your explanation. I hope that you will collect good examples and provide feedback, which will lead to the use of base registry for address in good shape.
That's all. I'm sorry for the main comment.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Now, Ms. Minami, Ms. Itaya, let's hear from you first.

South Member: South.
Thank you very much for your reply to our previous question. Local governments have now achieved a certain level of separation, and I think it will continue to progress.
In addition to the future real estate-based registry, I would like to add materials for corporate base registry, which was mentioned in the second question earlier. I think this is still something that will be promoted more and more in an agile manner, but I think it will be good if we can understand that in the future.
That's all. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Then, Mr. Itaya, please.

Member ITAYAKOSHI: Thank you very much. I think this is a very wonderful content, so I first asked you about it.
I have a proposal. This time, when the public-service organization conducts the verification, or when the government sends a message internally or externally, I think it is a very good opportunity to be clearly aware of the science of communication design as a government. It is also very effective in raising practical and positive motivation for the cooperating organizations. The other day, I said Reiwa style, and I wrote a proposal in the chat section using words that can be used by the government. If there is a word that can be used well, if there is a word that can be used well, by clearly recognizing that we are doing it, and by promoting it and putting it into practice, for example, in the future, I think there will always be cases where there are drawbacks. At that time, I think there will be many points that will make it easier to do it by defining the word "This is what we are thinking" as a stance. If there is a useful word, I would like you to use it.
I think that there are few cases where the delivery of language or messaging is so clearly recognized, partly because it is between Japanese people. But in other countries, where language and culture are different, halation is avoided to promote a positive attitude. I think it has a good effect to strongly say that Digital Agency is aware of this matter and is doing it, so I would like to ask for your cooperation.
I did not have any particular concerns about the content. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Mr. Itaya Koshi, what do you mean by "verbalizing the Reiwa style"?

Member ITAYAKOSHI: ," including the government and the digital agency, you can't write "Reiwa style," so the essence in this, for example, evidence-driven governance.

Chairman Annen: is cool.

Member ITAYAKOSHI: Yes, it looks cool, but when I talk about it, I pick up words from the Reiwa era, or if I had to say it, I would say this is what it is about, and I explain to the public call organization or internally that we are doing it as a communication design as a government, and I think the person who points it out can take advantage of it by saying that we know when there is a problem and how to deal with it as a design.
In that case, I think the way of proceeding or the way of communication will change completely, and I think it will be especially effective for Japanese people. Because there are very few scenes where such explanations are given. Well, I think so. That will create an atmosphere in which we can talk about it, and even if we do the same thing, I think this way will be a good opportunity to change the culture a lot.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much. A hard one has the effect of being hard.

Member ITAYAKOSHI: Yes, like using them at the same time to talk.

Chairman Annen: , what do you think?

Kageyama Member: Thank you very much.
Regarding Document 3, as stated in the document, I feel that it is very important that we do not aim for a perfect level from the beginning. On the other hand, I think that there is a high possibility that the person who refers to the information will be aware that the information referred to is correct. Therefore, I think that it is necessary to clarify the position of this information as a reference.
My remarks on Architecture overlap with those in Attachment 1, and I have also received remarks from each member. However, it seems that various burdens will differ depending on the extent to which information is held and where the information is coordinated and referenced. I believe that it is necessary to carefully sort out which information should be held and which information can be coordinated and referenced, as well as to design the scope of coordination and referencing in line with the laws and regulations, etc.
Regarding the image of implementation on page 11 of the slide, I understand that you are currently organizing the relationship between real estate based registry and base registry for address at a glance. When corporate base registry is involved here, how it will look like, especially since corporations are concentrated in one place, from the perspective of UI / UX, etc., if we can share an image that makes it more user-friendly as a whole, I thought that this concept would move forward, so I gave my remarks.
That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ogi, what do you think?

Fan Member: Thank you very much.
I have no objection at all to improving the current situation on page 2 little by little, and I think we will start with what we can do. This is a good point, but on the other hand, I think it would be good to show what the final goal is and what steps should be taken, even if it is only between phases. In that case, as Mr. Itaya Koshi mentioned earlier, I think we will be able to build a subconscious consensus that it would be more beneficial to ride on this if it becomes like this in the future, so I would like you to consider that.
Also, regarding the selection criteria on page 7, in the area of the digitization system, as I mentioned last time, I wonder if the specifications of computers and networks are included in the development of the work environment. Another thing I would like to say is that in the development of the pilot, how much information can be exchanged will affect the development of a system that is close to the actual system. Therefore, I thought it would be good to clarify the specifications that can be developed by the pilot, the points that should be demonstrated by the specifications, or more specifically, the limitations of the pilot, and proceed with the discussion on the premise that it will not work unless it is the actual system. This is the second point.
The third point is the future schedule on page 14. The pilot development will be demonstrated, and policies will be considered. I'm asking this with the full understanding that it is still a large arrow, but I think it will be a demonstration at this timing, policies will be considered, and feedback will be given to the development of the corporate base registry. I'm concerned that there will be a lot of rework depending on the policies. I thought it would be better to proceed while taking into consideration that the arrow of the base registry is at the level of the master, and within the arrow of development, whether the timing is enough to accept the results of the demonstration and the results of the associated policies and considerations.
These are the three points.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much. It's true that there is no turning back.
Mr. Ito, what do you think?

Prof. Ito: Thank you, Thank you very much.
I studied a lot from the previous discussion, and I vaguely understood that there are considerable obstacles to making the map accurate, so I think we should start from what we can do.
On the other hand, as it claims to be from base registry for address, I believe it is important to determine what kind of information can be extracted from a specific IP address and how to designate it. From that perspective, I would like to see how the database will be established and, as mentioned earlier in relation to cooperation with corporate base registry, I would like to see the IP address information of the land fixed so that it can be understood what kind of things and activities are carried on that land.
That's all. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Is Dr. Inadani next? Thank you.

Inadani: Thank you very much.
I would like to ask about the name of the methodology that Mr. Hiyatani mentioned. This map is based on the fact that it is written to include risks. In this case, I think it is about creating a map that meets the purpose with multi-stakeholders, including local governments that participated in the demonstration project and delivery operators. That is why, even if the start is not perfect, it will change and get better. We have given this kind of talk a name like agile governance, so it may be possible to say that the concept of improving the system fit-for-purpose with multi-stakeholders is an example of applying this concept. Of course, it is more in the context of risk governance. But I thought that it could be used in this context as well. This is one proposal.
Another question is how multi-stakeholders input information. I think this will be tested in the demonstration project. For example, if someone delivers a map to Mr. private sector, he or she will pop up a message saying he or she did not live here. In this way, information can be shared. Of course, if anyone can do such a thing that he or she does not live here, there is a possibility that someone will play a prank. Therefore, business operators who are appropriate to be called stakeholders and who are considered to have legitimate interests in the accuracy of the map will be given the right to pop up a message saying that this may be strange. If there are two or three overlapping cases, I think we can devise a system to deal with them. For example, my image is outdated, but there are precedents that are valid and those that are dangerous in the database of precedents in the US. Each time conflicting precedents are issued, the validity of the precedents will be questioned more and more, and they will be marked. Finally, I would like to Narumi in red that the precedents may be in danger. Therefore, when several points are pointed out, we will be able to understand internally that we need to check and correct the map. I think it would be interesting if a system to update the map in cooperation with stakeholders can be created in the demonstration project at some point. If multi-stakeholders can take the trouble to develop it, I think it would be good to consider some of them.
That's all. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
Thank you for waiting, Mr. Ochiai. What do you think?

Ochiai: Thank you very much. I was listening to you with the feeling that it was wonderful that the organization was progressing well.
There are also several points. The first point is, as far as I know, delivery service providers were mentioned in the discussion on the real estate ID of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, and it has been said intermittently in the past that there is a possibility of using private addresses.
On the other hand, what we can see from the registration information in this registry book is that we probably have not been able to identify where in the housing complex the apartment is automatically locked, and that the road itself is correct to a certain extent. Even so, it would be difficult to go back and forth and make mistakes, so that is significant. When it comes out after the fact that we could not reach the last house, I think it is a story that was not originally planned to that extent. I feel that the extent to which we were able to achieve solid results this time means that at the end, there is a part of the data that we need to show ourselves a little. I thought that it would be better not to evaluate it too strictly in this database when we evaluate it later, or that it is the preparation of such data from the beginning. I thought that it would be good for you to consider how to do it further after the end.
The second point is that we will integrate several data on page 12 and other pages, such as the indication of residence and the lot number, and although there will be repeated discussions on this, we will do it to the extent possible, and I think it is important again not to try to complete everything.
On the other hand, in this document, for example, on page 19, it is written that 70% of local governments have not implemented the computerization of the residence indication register, and that even if the residence indication itself has been implemented, it has not been digitized. I think that there are cases where the residence indication itself is not implemented unless it is a completely urban area, so in some cases, if such a thing is developed, I thought that there would be situations where it would be easier for both sides if the residence indication itself is the responsibility of the local government and there is no need to make a digitalization. I feel that this is somewhat the responsibility of the local government, and there may be such a barrier. However, aside from who makes the final decision, I thought that it would be good if we could make adjustments so that local governments and related people can use what we are using as the basis of their work as much as possible.
The third and final point, I would like to say briefly, is that there are many cases where after a demonstration project has been conducted, the demonstration alone does not make much difference. Therefore, I thought it would be good if the local government that conducted the demonstration could set a KPI of how it could continue to change its behavior after the demonstration.
That's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
We received a lot of important points, so what do you think, Mr. Nakagawa? I don't think you can answer all of them, but if you have any observations, please let us know.

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen Thank you very much. I think you gave us a lot of insights.
The first member of the Reiwa Style Itaya-koshi was mentioned, but we will be involved with various local governments in the future, and as the member of Inadani mentioned earlier, when it comes to multi-stakeholders, if we think about things that can be used by private companies and businesses in the future, I think that the agile way of communicating will become very important.
In particular, in terms of communication, it is important to be a person whose interests are aligned with each other in a positive way. However, first of all, as Mr. Itoh mentioned earlier, regarding the accuracy of the map, I think it is the communication that must be done first. Including the point that it does not prove the relationship of rights, it is necessary to have local governments work on it. In that sense, if there is a system that can be used by private sector in the future, I think we must continue to proceed with it after gaining their understanding. Thank you very much.
Also, with regard to the question from Mr. Keizan, I organized the Architecture here, but whether the design is good or not after actually operating it in the demonstration, and whether the future load and the amount of information exchanged, as Mr. Ogi mentioned, is close to the real situation will be the content of the verification, I think. In that sense, there are 25 organizations at the moment, but there are many more that have implemented residential indication, so I asked you while thinking that it would be better to confirm whether it is really good or not.
With regard to the inter-phase discussions, Mr. Ogi said that this would be fine for the time being, but on the question of what we should aim for in the end, as Mr. Minami and Mr. Kageyama mentioned that we can obtain necessary information in cooperation with corporate base registry. On the question of what we should aim for, in that sense, we are actually trying to know it, and I am now wondering if there is such a demonstration. It is not definite yet, but if we try it, we may find out whether there are such needs. We may have found such needs when we worked with the ministries and agencies in charge of the system, and the ministries and agencies in charge of the system may have noticed them. Therefore, I would like to consider whether it is possible to continue to create such things.
And lastly, I received a comment from a member of Ochiai that 72.7% had not been digitized, but some had not. This is if people think that there is no need to force a digitalization for the housing indication system itself, and if there is such a system, it would be good. There are local governments that do not introduce housing indications and still manage them with lot numbers, and I think they have their own circumstances. So, I asked you to look at the fact that this is what was actually created, and while communicating with local governments in that sense, I thought that it could be considered as the next development to speak out with the Resident System Division of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, which is in charge of housing indication, about how this was created. Thank you very much.
I think I have answered most of the questions. I have also held a meeting on MLIT's real estate IDs, so I would like to continue to pick up information from there. It is the meeting mentioned by the Ochiai members. I would like to continue to deepen cooperation with them.
That's all for now. Thank you.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
If an administrative style in which everyone works through this base registry is established, it will probably be an epoch-making event in the history of Japanese administration. Until now, it has been a sense of assignment from above, so I think it includes the possibility that it will be made in a very different culture.
At that time, as Mr. Itaya Koshi said, I think words are really important. Words can be persuasive. However, at that time, as Mr. Ogi said, it is necessary to have something prior to that, and it is natural to say that PCs should be delivered properly.
Also, I think Professor Ochiai probably meant this, but you are absolutely right that we must not place too much of a burden on local governments, and I have heard that local governments have been very strict about the Government Cloud, so I thought we should be very careful about that.
Thank you very much for your lively discussion today.

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen Ochiai I think the members are raising their hands now.

Chairman Annen: Sorry, Mr. Ochiai, please come in.

Ochiai: Thank you very much.
I received a comment from Director Nakagawa, which reminded me again that the way of using addresses in the case of delivery differs depending on the purpose of the business, and this may be enough for other business operators. That is the only need that has been raised earlier, but to what extent is it really necessary? There is the cost of data collection, so how can the cost be reasonably paid, and whether it is something that business operators cannot afford at all. Also, in the end, this is what it is all about, and in combination with that, although it is shorter than miles, we need to come up with ideas for the last mile, or we cannot create the entire system. In that sense, it is important to listen to the delivery business operators this time, but I believe that other types of business operators will continue to ask about how to use it if it has such a purpose, and that they will be able to pick it up from many businesses within local governments. I do not think it is necessary to ask various users about such things as the contents of multi-stakeholders as Professor Inadani said, and I do not think I can answer all of them, but I think it would be good if you could organize the inter-operability and the points where explanations can be incorporated into the business to make it useful.
I may be asking too much, but that's all.

Chairman Annen: That's right. I think there are probably various needs in the world that we don't know about. However, I think many people probably think that there is no point in hoping for such a thing and give up. I hope you will make an effort to discover such things. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for the lively discussion today. I would like the secretariat to compile the contents of the previous meeting and reflect them in the maintenance and improvement plan. The secretariat is scheduled to individually explain the compiled maintenance and improvement plan to the members around May. It is the season for the maintenance and improvement plan again.
Finally, the secretariat will contact you.

Director Nakagawa: Thank you, Chairman Yasunen .
Today, I would like to prepare the minutes and release them to the public after you have reviewed them.
In addition, today's materials will also be disclosed on the website of the Advisory Group to Promote Base Registry. Thank you for your cooperation.
Secretariat, that's all.

Chairman Annen: Thank you very much.
This concludes the Fifth Meeting of the "Advisory Group for the Promotion of Base Registry" or Bellabou.
I would like to say that I am not joking when I say "Bellabou," but this is the official abbreviation of this Advisory Panel. As you know well from the previous meeting, this was established by Mr. Nakagawa's predecessor, Mr. Director Kaiganoura. If I remember correctly, it is not the initial letters of Base-Registry-Advisory-Board, but I think they were combined appropriately to make Bellabou, so I would like everyone to use it.
As I mentioned earlier, the secretariat will be explaining the results of the report compiled around May. I would like to ask the members to look forward to it.
Thank you very much for today.

Greater than or