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 ".

Second Meeting of Experts Promoting the Base Registry

Last Updated:

Overview

  • Date and time: Friday, April 25, 2025, from 15:00 to 17:00
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Public Basic Information Database Development and Improvement Plan (Corporate Registry)
      2. Institutional Response to the Development of a Corporate Registry
      3. On the Treatment of Maps in Base Registries and the Scope of Registries in base registry for address
      4. Handling of "Gaiji" in Commercial Corporation / Real Estate Registration Data
    3. Closing

Data

Minutes, etc.

Date and time

  • Friday, April 25, 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)

Expert member

  • Hiroyuki Sasahara (Professor, School of Social Sciences, Waseda University)

Observer

  • Takuyuki YOSHIYA (Personal Information Protection Commission Secretariat, Director)
  • Atsushi Inumaru (Director of the Civil Systems Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Administration Bureau)
  • Taisuke OTA (Director of Municipal Affairs 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

Kiyoura Director: Then, since we have time, I would like to start. Thank you very much.

Now, I would like to start the first step. This is the second meeting of the Expert Group on the Promotion of the Base Registry, commonly known as Bellabow. I look forward to working with you.

Today, it will be held online. I heard that Ochiai will leave the room on the way, and Masujima will arrive about 30 minutes late.

Also, I heard that a member of the Municipal Affairs Division of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications will be absent as an observer. Thank you for your cooperation.

In that case, Chairman, Mr. Yasunen, please take care of the proceedings.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, , thank you very much. Today's menu is full of dishes, so I would like to proceed smoothly with your cooperation.

Today's agenda consists of the four items listed in the agenda.

I would now like to ask the Secretariat to explain agenda item 1, "Proposal for Improvement of Public Basic Information Database (Corporate Registry)."

Kiyoura Director: This is a proposal for the improvement plan for the corporate base registry part. I sent you a document written in Word in advance, so I would like to hear your opinions later. Here, on page 3, I will briefly introduce how we are responding to the opinions received at the previous meeting, and what form we are taking as some of them are written and some are not.

In the previous meeting, I heard opinions that the basic policies should include the concept of the development of the base registry, and that the shortening of lead time is also important in terms of results or policy effects, so I think it would be good to include it. Regarding this, in the development and improvement plan, the vision is specifically stated, and some are investigating administrative procedures, so I would like to ask for the cooperation of industry in areas that are not necessarily linked to laws and ordinances. In addition, regarding lead time, I would like to see if a sample survey can be conducted in the future.

As for the scope of use, we discussed including the private sector at the bottom. Some said that it would be natural to include in the scope of use those organizations that play roles equivalent to those of the national and local governments. Others said that private sector use should be possible in the future.

Regarding the confirmation of registered matters, in particular, the use of substitution for official requests, I showed the materials last time, but as there is talk of financial cost burden for administrative organizations, etc., which is out of the scope now, I think it is necessary to sort out the cost burden such as system operation expenses. Based on such discussions, I think we will sort out the scope of use.

In addition, in terms of system development, you pointed out that it should be possible to understand what kind of information is stored, and that consideration should be given to the next renewal of the registration information system in the future. This part is also described a little, so please check it.

In that case, that's all for my explanation.

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

First of all, I would like to hear Mr. Ministry of Justice's opinion. I believe that the realization of a corporate-based registry will be a joint project between Ministry of Justice and Digital Agency, and I would like to ask you to speak from that standpoint.

Then, I would like to ask Mr. Tanaka, Manager of the Trading Section, to turn on the camera and the microphone and speak. Thank you.

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

The operation of the Corporate Base Registry will start in March next year. We recognize that the development of the Base Registry is an important initiative from the perspective of improving convenience for the people and improving the efficiency of administrative operations. As the Government of Ministry of Justice, which is in the position of holding and providing registration information of companies and corporations, we will firmly respond in cooperation with Digital Agency.

On the other hand, since the development and operation of the corporate registry requires considerable costs, we believe it is also important to organize and consider how to bear the expenses. When the operation of the corporate registry starts, it is expected that Ministry of Justice, which provides the registered information, will incur expenses for dealing with problems and inquiries that occur in data linkage. Ministry of Justice has introduced a reasonable budget and personnel resources for the stable operation of the registration system. Considering that the expenses related to the operation of the corporate registry are likely to increase in the future due to the expansion of administrative agencies using the corporate registry and the increase in the number of data linkage cases, we believe that it is difficult for Ministry of Justice alone to bear the expenses related to this operation 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.

In the future, in order to continuously and stably provide registration information to the corporate-based registry, we consider it necessary to organize the expenses incurred in the operation of the registry as necessary based on the needs of the administrative organs using the registry, and to consider having the administrative organs using the registry bear the appropriate expenses from the viewpoint of the beneficiary's burden. There may be various discussions on this point, but we will continue to consider how it should be while listening to your opinions.

That's all from me.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, , Tanaka-san, thank you very much. In any case, we can't avoid the problem of money.

If there are any comments or questions from the members on this agenda item, including those from Mr. Ministry of Justice, please let us know. What do you think?

Mr. Ogiso, is your hand up? Please.

Member Ogiso: Nice to meet you, New Economic Federation. Pleased to meet you.

Regarding my previous opinion, you answered that the scope of future use will be considered in conjunction with the cost issue, and you also mentioned that it will be considered at the next meeting. Currently, what I am interested in is how it is positioned in the maintenance and improvement plan in Appendix 3. Therefore, I would like you to describe what you pointed out in the previous meeting.

In addition, regarding the cost burden for private use, I am not necessarily speaking on the premise that private use is free of charge, and I think it is strange that it is prohibitively expensive, but it is difficult to compare it with what, but in short, I think it is a reasonable cost burden, and I think that it is better for the Japanese economy as a whole to allow private use in such a place, so I am speaking on that premise, and I would like to add something to avoid misunderstanding.

.

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

Next, Kageyama-san, please.

Kageyama: Thank you, . This is Kageyama.

May I also make a statement on Appendix 3?

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, Mixed, please.

Kageyama: Thank you, Certainly.

As you mentioned earlier about the system operation cost, I would like to express my opinion as a practitioner. After that, I would also like to express my opinion on Handout 3. As judicial scriveners, we work every day with the aim of completing the registration requested as soon as possible. As for the budget, it is necessary to raise the system operation cost from the limited budget, but if a large amount of Ministry of Justice budget is spent on the base registry concept, there is a concern that the budget for the original registration practice may be strained. As a result, if the completion of the registration is delayed, I believe that a very big problem will arise.

I believe that the core of the Base Registry concept lies in being able to properly grasp the latest information. However, if the completion of the original registration is delayed, there is a possibility that the foundation of the Base Registry concept may be affected. Therefore, I feel that further consideration is necessary regarding the burden of expenses, etc.

Next, I would like to make some comments on Handout 3.

From the viewpoint of providing a list of materials, I felt that it would be easier to understand if we included an explanation of whether all registered corporations are subject to the Corporate Registry described in the Development Plan, or whether some corporations are not subject to the Corporate Registry.

In each of No. 3, 1, (2), (a) to (e), the users of the database are described as administrative organs, etc. and incorporated administrative agencies, etc. On page 3 of Appendix 2 and page 1 of Appendix 3, there is a description of utilization of common infrastructure of services in the private sector, but regarding the use of the database in the private sector, is there any room for change in the description of Appendix 3 based on future discussions? This is a somewhat questionably statement.

"Administrative organs, etc." are the users of the database in No. 3, 1. (2) D., and the footnote indicates that it refers to the organizations subject to the request for public service. However, since the term "administrative organs, etc." is used in other places, it seems that it is difficult to understand at first glance. Therefore, it seems that there will be no misunderstanding if it is written as "administrative organs subject to the request for public service" in the text.

In No. 3, 1, (2) e, the term "registration data set" is used. Having read past materials, I am aware that the term "registration data set" is used, but I felt that it would be easier to understand if the definition of "registration data set" is included so that even those who read only the development plan can understand it at a glance.

In addition, in No. 3, 1 (3), I believe that this is also related to costs, but it is said that commercial and corporate registration information will be provided as needed in response to requests from the system managed by Digital Agency. I feel that it would be easier to understand from the perspective of costs if we clarify to a certain extent the frequency of requests.

Currently, there is a type of registration for which registration applications are frequently made, such as registration of subscription rights to shares. In this case, the registration is locked until the registration is completed. However, I felt that it is necessary to consider how to link the registration information system that is locked with information on corporations.

I'm sorry for the delay. That's all.

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

Mr. Itaya, did you raise your hand? Please.

Member: Koshi ITAYA, In the overall plan, the first point is that I think it is necessary to make a separate description of the operation. I would like to pick up Mr. Ogi's point in advance, but I think that the operation has a business perspective and a system perspective, and the description of how to consider and implement the operation was generally thin. I think that a separate operation design will be made, but I think that it will lead to the sustainability of the operation if the content and the process of determining, operating, and implementing are included in the plan.

My second question is, in setting the issues in this book, the fact that there are attached documents for registration is a major issue, but there is a discussion in the past that the registration application itself is not an issue, and I thought that the process of registration itself is quite large, so I thought that reading the plan would deepen understanding and make it easier for readers to understand if there were a reason why other materials were referenced or not covered.

I think it is very difficult to attach documents every time because I am required to attach them every time. However, since it is quite difficult to apply including the change of registration, if there is a excuse that it should be discussed separately, I can read it thinking that I do not need to think about it. I think I am only saying this because I do not know the past discussion, but I am just saying it just in case.

That's all.

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

This is only my view, but the starting point for the latter part of your point is that the system is used by the administration based on the law. Therefore, I recognize that Mr. Ogiso pointed out earlier that the opening of the system to the private sector is an important issue. To be more precise, I would like to hear some comments from the secretariat later if possible. Thank you very much.

Member: Koshi ITAYA, .

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, Mr. Inadani, please.

Member Inadani: I would like to make a similar comment to Mr. Ogiso, but as I mentioned last time, and as the Secretariat mentioned in the previous communication, privatized corporations that are performing public functions are not distinguished from public organizations from the perspective of the people, or they are performing public functions as a whole, so I am aware of the cost burden and other issues. There are probably other issues to be discussed, but I would like to ask you a few questions about whether you can show that at least how much will be included in Appendix 3 this time will be an issue for consideration.

I believe that this point is extremely important, and I believe that there is a fact that public services are not completed by public institutions alone at present, and as long as there are such circumstances as an irreversible flow, I believe that consideration is necessary in advancing digitalisation. I believe that this point is not clearly stated in Handout 3, so I have made a comment in the hope that it will be clearly stated.

That's all.

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

Excuse me, I might have overlooked Mr. Ogi. I'm very sorry. Please, Mr. Ogi.

Member Ogi: Thank you, I'm fine. Thank you.

I would like to answer three questions, including what you are saying. First of all, from Mr. Ministry of Justice's point of view, even though he only wants to use one room of the condominium, he is told to bear the construction cost of the entire condominium. I understand that this is a pain. Therefore, I would like to make a logical decision on the beneficiaries' burden in a broad sense, which includes the government, the government agency, and the private sector in the future. I believe that the same cost burden should be applied to similar projects in the future after Mr. Ministry of Justice. Basically, there is no difference from what you said.

As for Handout 3, on pages 6 and 7, for example, the source of the information, Mr. Ministry of Justice's roles, and Mr. Digital Agency's database management, from the perspective of the end users such as local governments, who is ultimately responsible for this service, for example, what happens when a problem occurs, even though it works normally in normal times? The frustration I get at the front desk is that I don't know what is going on at all, but it doesn't work for some reason, and I think that the customers who come to the front desk are irritated. So, what is happening now and how long is it moving? I think it would be good to have a portal where I can send out information all at once. Since this project by Mr. Ministry of Justice will be the first project, I don't think it will be sudden from the first stage, but I think we should definitely avoid the situation where information that is asked later arrives separately and I don't know where to search.

Based on this, I wonder if Mr. Digital Agency's expression of "database management" on page 7 is really appropriate. Database management is like a box, but I wonder if it is a little different. I understand that the main body of the service will be Mr. Digital Agency, so I think you should think about the expression a little more.

Last but not least, I would like to say this in a vague way, but I would like to make it clear that, assuming the local government, for example, as the contact person, I would like to know about the user experience, or what is bothering us now, and what benefits will come out if we do this after this incident. I think it is about the so-called user experience, but I thought it would be better to summarize this once.

These are my three points.

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

Is there anything else you would like to say?

Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai member: .

While you have already made various statements, you have firstly summarized it in this way, and I believe that it has become very forward-looking.

I would like to make two points again, which I believe are extremely important.

First, I believe that what is missing to the maximum extent is the fact that matters related to private sector use are not clearly specified. I believe that it is necessary to clarify the path to private sector use since it is called the base registry. Separately, in the digital administrative and fiscal reform, we are discussing the development of trust infrastructure, but there is no doubt that basic information on corporations will certainly be necessary for the formation of trust infrastructure. In that sense, I believe that making such a database available for private sector use and how to develop it are extremely important points to be discussed. I would like you to fill this out and then confirm it. This is the first point.

The second point is the approach to costs. There have been various discussions, but I believe it is important to consider what kind of administrative services and systems will be converted in the future, and to consider a certain kind of precedent and the scope of that precedent. In the future, in the case of promoting once-only or push-type administration, I believe that there is a view that the private sector will eventually bear the cost in return, and I believe that there are many cases where this is acceptable. On the other hand, I believe that push-type or a system in which such information is automatically provided and charges are automatically charged at that time is a good system. How should the cost be borne for the part that is truly a common function in society? Of course, in the end, the mechanism of commercial registration itself, as well as the base registry, if there is no income, the cost to maintain it cannot be paid. Therefore, if there is no premise that the income structure itself will be properly maintained in the end, it is naturally impossible to argue that only the income should be reduced. In such a case, I think it would be good to consider how the administration using the base registry will be converted in the future, and consider how the cost should be borne.

These are my 2 points.

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

Then, may I speak to Mr. Ogawa, please?

Member OGAWA: Thank you, . I'm sorry I didn't have time.

I have the same opinion as Mr. Ochiai's first point. As discussed at DigiBank, the Federation of Economic Organizations (Keidanren) is currently considering the development of an industrial data space, and I have pointed out that the development of trust infrastructure, including identity and authenticity, is very important. In this sense, I have great expectations for the utilization of the base registry. I do not intend to put a significant pressure on Ministry of Justice's budget, so I would like to ask you to take measures including those.

As for private sector utilization, as Mr. Ogiso mentioned, I would like to talk about a wider range of data-utilization in general. Japanese people have an image that data-utilization is free, but I think it is a matter of course to bear the cost according to the benefits obtained by data-utilization. Therefore, I thought it would be better to consider the private sector utilization on the premise that the private sector should bear a certain amount of cost.

Thank you very much.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, .

Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Is that all right?

Then, Secretariat, would you like to make a response at this stage? Please.

Kiyoura Director: In that case, I would like to make three main comments.

First of all, since we have received various opinions on the writing style, I would like to deal with them while looking at them one by one. However, I would like to avoid making it too large, so I would like to think about it while keeping compactness in mind.

Second, I think you suggested that while the system perspective is relatively large, the service perspective is also necessary. In that case, there is also the issue of how to think about UI and UX, so I would like to think about it with that in mind.

The third point, the biggest one, is the cost burden. Each ministry and agency has its own share of the cost burden. The cost burden in the case of private sector use, together with how to collect the cost burden, is a big issue in practice. Therefore, I think we should consider this as a future issue.

I would like to think about this point, including where and how to write it in the maintenance improvement plan, based on the discussions after this time, so please take care of it.

That's all from me.

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

Thank you very much for your active opinions. As stated in the notice, the Improvement and Management Plan is based on Article 19, Paragraph 2 of the Digital Administration Promotion Act, which stipulates the items to be included in the Plan by law. The Secretariat can only write the Plan within this framework. It is not something that can be written freely and freely. The Secretariat has a framework in this sense, and I think there may be some difficulties. However, based on the various discussions you have had, I would like to ask the Secretariat to take measures after consulting with the relevant ministries and agencies.

I would now like to turn to agenda item 2, "Institutional arrangements for the establishment of a corporate-based registry." Please provide an explanation from the secretariat.

Kiyoura Director: This is about the handling of personal data when it was established as a registry. Based on the discussions in the past review meetings, as a basic policy, firstly, it is important to change the purpose of use of information held by Ministry of Justice, and secondly, Digital Agency, which will establish a public basic information database, should set a new purpose of use.

As you can see in the figure on the next page, there is a rule that the purpose of use can be changed within a reasonable range in the original database of Ministry of Justice on the left-hand side. We would like to change it in that way. In addition, a new base registry will be created in Digital Agency.

The specific way of writing is described on page 4. In Ministry of Justice, the purpose of use is specified for each registry such as commercial corporation registration, for example, joint-stock company. We are considering adding such a sentence to it. We will be as specific as possible. The specific things will be written in the maintenance and improvement plan. We will do this based on it. At the bottom, the purpose of use in Digital Agency is to provide it to administrative organizations.

So, I would like you to discuss these points with me today.

That's all from me.

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

Regarding this agenda item, I would first like to hear the opinions of the relevant ministries and agencies. First, I would like to ask the Personal Information Protection Commission Secretariat to comment on the specific "Change / Identification of Purpose of Use (Draft)" described on page 4 of Appendix 4.

Then, I would like to ask Director Yoshiya to speak with his camera and microphone on. Thank you.

Director Yoshiya: I think what Professor Inadani Committee on Personal Information. Nice to meet you.

In response to your recent comment on the institutional response to the development of the base registry, I believe that you have proposed changing the purpose of use of Ministry of Justice and specifying the purpose of use of Digital Agency.

On top of that, I would like to briefly explain the first part. First, regarding the change of the Purpose of Use, as stated on page 5 of the handout, Article 61, Paragraph 3 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information states that when an administrative organ changes the Purpose of Use, it must not go beyond the scope reasonably recognized as having a substantial relationship with the Purpose of Use before the change. I believe that this substantial relationship has been discussed several times, but it has been pointed out that it is somewhat ambiguous. In fact, we have not presented a specific interpretation of Article 61, Paragraph 3, but there is a similar provision in the private sector, which is in Article 17. Article 17 has been shown in our QA, which shows what kind of things are relevant. For example, the purpose is originally specified as using personal information to provide information on new services and new products. In response to the question whether it is okay to consider that providing information on existing services and products using personal information collected for this purpose has a relationship with the Purpose of Use, it has been pointed out that it is okay to consider that it has a relationship.

As for the example of having no relevance, for example, when the purpose is to use personal information for the purpose of product safety, data authenticity, access control, or to prevent cyber attacks, the personal information is used for products and services. In response to the question of whether this is relevant, I said that it is different.

Therefore, considering the current granularity, I believe that there have been discussions so far on whether the use of this registration information for the base registry is of considerable relevance. If necessary, I would like to discuss this issue with experts this time. First of all, I would appreciate it if you could sort it out appropriately, taking into account the existing relationships.

The other is the specific part of the Purpose of Utilization. It is stated that the Purpose of Utilization should be specified as specifically as possible. As for the Purpose of Utilization, as discussed earlier, there are discussions on who should be provided with the information and whether more information should be collected. Therefore, it is not certain whether the Purpose of Utilization has been determined at this point. However, if it has been clarified based on the future Cabinet decision, which I mentioned earlier, I think that it can be explained. Therefore, whether the Purpose of Utilization can be explained in this way has been well discussed between Mr. Digital Agency and Mr. Ministry of Justice, and we are considering organizing based on that. So, I think what I can talk about now is the content of the Purpose of Utilization.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, . Thank you, Director Yoshiya. I think you gave me a very useful suggestion, not just a vague one or something. Thank you.

Then, from Ministry of Justice, I would like to ask Mr. Tanaka, Manager of the Trading Company again.

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

Regarding the change of the purpose of use of the personal information file pertaining to the commercial corporation registration in Ministry of Justice, we have been considering the change of the purpose of use in cooperation with Digital Agency and Personal Information Protection Commission. Ministry of Justice will continue to cooperate in considering the addition of the purpose of use of the personal information file pertaining to the commercial corporation registration based on the content determined in the improvement plan toward the start of operation of the corporate-based registry. Thank you for your cooperation.

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

If you have any comments or questions on this agenda item, including the comments you have just made, I would appreciate it very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Ogiso.

Member Ogiso: Nice to meet you, I have a question I would like to ask to Mr. Yoshiya. The conclusion is completely OK, but I would like to ask you for your reference. Even in the private sector, it is difficult to interpret changes in the purpose of use, and it has often been the case that data collected in the past cannot be used well. I would like to ask Personal Information Protection Commission to respond flexibly to this issue, but I am not going to digress because it is not a topic to be discussed here. In relation to this, the current measures cannot be used as a base registry unless they are all flexibly read, so I think that interpretation is completely acceptable. However, I would be grateful if you could just tell me whether or not there are differences in the interpretation of the current measures in relation to the private sector, or whether or not there are any peculiarities as an administrative organization.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, That's a difficult question.

Director Yoshiya, do you have any views at this stage?

Director Yoshiya: I think what Professor Inadani The Act on the Protection of Personal Information is divided into private and public regulations, and the rationale is slightly different in the first place. Therefore, I would like to talk only about this part. In the case of private regulations, the purpose of use should be specified. Regarding the purpose of use, although the provisions are slightly different, as described in Article 61, Paragraph 3 on page 5 of the handout, administrative organs are "considerably related," while the private sector is described in a slightly loose form as "related." Therefore, in short, the private sector is required to be at a level that the person can understand. On the other hand, in the case of public regulations, regardless of whether the person is good or not, for example, if the person allows the family register not to be listed, the family register system will not be established. Therefore, regardless of whether the person is good or not, the administrative organs forcibly collect what is necessary for them. The administrative organs only do what is necessary for the world as their affairs under their jurisdiction. There is no deviation in the part of whether it is an appropriate content. Therefore, the word "considerably" is included, and the understanding is that the administrative organs are slightly narrower.

However, speaking of this incident, we are collecting information on the registration for the purpose of making it open to everyone in the first place, and regarding handing it over to Digital Agency as an individual office, as I just mentioned, whether it is out of the jurisdiction of the administrative agency, I do not mean that we can do something about it right now, but I have been discussing it with Ministry of Justice, and I think you have pointed out that a considerable part of it can be sorted out. Based on that, I have the impression that the administrative agency can discuss it even if it is of considerable relevance.

That's all.

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

Mr. Ogiso, we need to have a close discussion.

Member Ogiso: Nice to meet you, .

It was a very useful discussion. Thank you.

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

Mr. Inadani, please.

Member Inadani: .

I would like to make a rather pro-active comment, which is related to a rather difficult issue, but I believe that what you are currently arranging is that it will be like this if it is put up as much as possible within the framework of the current Act on the Protection of Personal Information. I understand this very well, including the circumstances. However, regarding the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, the Study Group on Digital Administration and Finance, which is working with Ochiai, is moving a little, and I am aware that at least the private sector is considering it on a risk basis.

On the other hand, with regard to administrative organs, whether or not the information was obtained within the scope of the administrative organs' duties is a very difficult question. Considering the risk of abuse, some of them act as a bulwark, so to speak. However, on the other hand, I feel that the situation we are facing now is not a world view in which administrative organs perform their respective duties separately, but rather a turning point in which they cooperate well to efficiently realize larger services and are supported by the digitalisation. Moreover, from what you have just said, if we consider that this discussion is taking place in the context of discussions on what would happen if related public service organizations and private entities come together to develop services, while considering the direction of the future revision of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, or even the suggestion that there is such a suggestion, rather than present moment, as you pointed out, it may be necessary to set up a specialized discussion, but I think it would be better to start the discussion on what to do in such a big picture from the current stage, especially if we keep in mind that the scope of user organizations and private use will come together later. Therefore, I think it would be better to consider the basis for discussion while bearing in mind the changes in the structure, or in other words, changes in the way of thinking and the situation surrounding personal data and personal information.

At present, I do not have any complaints about this arrangement. However, it is precisely because of the current situation of personal information that it has started to move. However, I think it is appropriate to say again that how to fill the gap between what was originally established and what was not will become a problem in the future. That is why I made this comment.

That's all.

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

The risk-based way of thinking has been adopted in the Criminal Proceeds Act for quite a long time.

Yoshiya Director, please.

Director Yoshiya: I think what Professor Inadani has just said is exactly as you say. The base registry will be organized under the current framework. However, I think that this issue and whether such a thing will be recognized by society or whether the general public thinks that it should be done are gradually arising as separate discussions. Rather than saying that this should be done as the Personal Information Protection Act, I think that the discussion on how data should be used in society and whether the Personal Information Protection Act should be done in accordance with it is an afterthought for us. Therefore, rather than moving information in accordance with us, I think that the direction of information required by the world will be firmly organized and personal information protection will be organized in accordance with it.

In that case, as I mentioned earlier, can we unify everything on a risk-based basis? Originally, the protection of personal information started from the fact that if the government used personal information without permission, it would be monitored by people. So, what should we do in relation to that? In the case of benefits for the novel coronavirus pandemic or the earthquake disaster, if the government pushed and recognized individuals, rather than responding only after they applied, it would be impossible to respond if the government did not have personal information. So, whether to recognize such things as a society or not? If the government as a whole does not sort out its views, we will not be able to take action. Therefore, I understand that we are talking about how far the current government can respond to the proposals while understanding half of these points.

.

Member Inadani: .

I am very aware of your situation, and I am sure we share the same awareness of the problem. Thank you very much for your continued support.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, Drawing big designs is the work of academia. In other words, it's Mr. Inadani's work. Thank you.

Are there any other comments? Is it all right for now?

Now that you have given us very useful suggestions on how to respond under the PICA, I would like to ask you to continue to take the measures in Ministry of Justice and Digital Agency as proposed today.

This is followed by agenda item 3, "Treatment of maps in the base registry and the scope of the registry in base registry for address". Please provide an explanation from the Secretariat.

Kiyoura Director: The next item on the agenda.

Regarding the map, we received various presentations and opinions last time. There are variations in the content and accuracy of the required data.

This time, three circles are written as ways of organizing. First, we are trying to organize what kind of data quality is necessary according to each need. Second, based on the current status of data development, and third, I will explain the content, accuracy, and validity of the data later. Depending on that, we will consider whether it should be developed as a base registry or whether there are other ways.

On the next page, I first tried to sort out what kind of data quality is required, and I understand that it can be divided into two categories: those that require a certain level of accuracy and those that are sufficient for reference only. As for the items for which accuracy should be secured, when calculating the market capitalization or the amount of compensation, which are related to money, it is necessary to have a certain level of accuracy in terms of position and shape. If it is sufficient to know one piece, some preliminary work, a rough relationship, or an adjacent relationship, it can be used even if such accuracy is not secured. I understand that there are two main categories.

The next page is a summary of what data related to the current location is organized based on what laws. There is information in characters in front of the map, so it is also organized. As for the character base, it is the so-called indication of residence, but it is managed by municipalities based on the Local Autonomy Act, and the lot number is managed by Ministry of Justice based on the Real Estate Registration Act. These are collected and organized by the administration based on laws. Of course, a certain degree of accuracy is secured and secured in a sense, and although it is currently written as legitimacy, whether the information collection has legitimacy based on laws and ordinances is of course there. By this, since it is based on laws and ordinances, I believe that it is possible to secure or claim some disposition or rights based on it.

On the other hand, if you go to the map, there is a slight variation in the status of maintenance. Regarding the town, block, building, etc., if it is a local government that is managed by paper ledgers, the shape is basically written, but there is no detailed information such as latitude and longitude. On the other hand, if it is a place that is maintained by GIS, although there is location information such as accurate latitude and longitude, it is only maintained for the convenience of business, and it is not essential in the sense of legitimacy as I just mentioned.

In addition, there are various maps such as a registry office map and a cadastral map. Regarding these, I have dropped them in the notes, but the accuracy varies depending on the year when they were created. Also, regarding various drawings, what accuracy is guaranteed depends on the object.

Based on this, what kind of data should be positioned? If it is a base registry, it would be better to develop a base registry that has both accuracy and validity as collateral.

On the other hand, for those that can be expected to have a certain level of accuracy, we consider providing them in the form of open data, and we are trying to color-code them this time. Of course, the cost of providing open data is not free, so who will develop it, and since it is open data, it is impossible to say that it is inaccurate, so I believe that a certain level of updates is expected, but I believe that a certain level of careful consideration is necessary regarding who will implement such things.

Therefore, on the next page, I would like to restate what kind of consideration is necessary going forward. First of all, base registry for address is positioned relatively close to open data in the first place, but this time, in order to position it as a base registry, we have received confirmation from local governments at the level up to the town, and we have confirmed that it is correct data.

On the other hand, I believe it is necessary to consider how detailed it will be, what to do with city blocks, residence numbers, etc., and how to develop and provide it as a whole, including the open data policy.

On the other hand, regarding the base registry for real estate registration and registration information, there are some items that are not provided in the data in the original of the registration, such as the registration data set, even if they are in the range of characters that are not on the map. I recognize that whether to add such items when they become the base registry will be an issue to be considered. As for the map I mentioned earlier, there are some places where great usefulness can be achieved only when information is linked, so I think that detailed consideration will be necessary in the future on how to develop it.

That's all for my explanation.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, .

If you have any comments or questions on this agenda item, please do so.

Mr. Takakura, is your hand up? Please.

Takakura: I apologize for being late at the beginning of the .

I would like to talk about practical use cases. Land and building investigators provide various attached information when applying for registration, but the Legal Affairs Bureau cooperates with information to some extent, so it is possible to omit the attachment of a certificate of seal impression of a corporation or a certificate of qualification, although I digress a little.

On the other hand, regarding the application to the administration, when applying for confirmation of the road boundary, it is required to submit a certificate of registered matters, a map, and a land survey map of the land subject to confirmation and the land adjacent to it to the department managing the road. I am also an administrative scrivener, so for example, when applying for permission to convert farmland, I attach not only the application site but also information on the surrounding area in order to understand whether the conversion will affect the surrounding area.

To be more specific, in addition to the certificate of registered matters, we also submit documents that can be visually confirmed, such as a map, the land category registered in the cadastral map, the current usage status, and information on the owners. These documents are exactly the same as GIS printed on paper, and I believe that this is the information that the administration is actually seeking.

In this regard, recently, map information has become open data through the G-Space Information Center, and there are more and more situations that can lead to labor saving by utilizing it. As I said last time, as an ideal theory, if we can utilize a system that displays various registration data such as owner information, land area, and the presence or absence of buildings in layers on residential maps and maps, it will be possible to grasp the lot number of the land on which the residence is displayed, and I think that information coordination between administrations will deepen, which will undoubtedly lead to improved convenience for citizens and more efficient administrative work. In addition, I think that it will be useful for understanding the damage situation in the event of a disaster.

However, as mentioned in Appendix 3, in the short term, I think it will be a matter of cost. The cost and capability of the system itself is also a problem, but in the first place, Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Real Estate Registration Act, which is the basis of this base registry, Since the rate of improvement of maps is only 59%, there is a possibility that it will be necessary to organize the data itself to meet the requirements of the base registry such as accuracy and validity. Therefore, I think a long-term vision is necessary to determine the cost-effectiveness.

On the other hand, as has often been discussed, regarding the opening of the real estate registry to the private sector, there are already several private companies whose core business is to provide map information in a general sense. Among them, there are some companies that provide information for a fee in the form of a layer of open data maps provided by registry offices. If all the real estate registries are integrated and opened to the private sector, there is a risk that sound corporate activities will be hindered. This may be an old woman's idea, but I think we should be a little cautious in this part.

That's all.

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

As for the last point, I recognize that the original theme was how much granularity the government should have.

What do you think, Mr. Minami?

Member Minami: As Professor administration, as you just mentioned, of course, the cadastral map, or rather, the progress of the cadastral survey is necessary for making the Section 1 map. Under the situation where the progress is not being made, even in the case of our city, it is still only about 40%. Therefore, it is lower than the national average. What should we do with that?

As you mentioned earlier, the lot number under the building in the area where the address is displayed is not really accurate unless this area is maintained. Therefore, for the time being, as for the areas where the map in Section 1 has not been made, as mentioned on the last page of this document, it will be necessary to judge by the floor plan of the house and the location map.

Therefore, it is necessary to decide when to prepare such a map. However, in the case of a city like ours, I believe that one of the issues to be considered in the future is that a certain one term map is prepared, and the existing lot number map created for taxation is mixed and operated.

That's all.

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

It is true that we have no choice but to mobilize all sources. Thank you very much.

Next, Mr. Itaya, please.

Member: Koshi ITAYA, I believe there is a page called "Direction of Consideration (Draft)" on page 5 of the material just now. When you read this, do you mean that the measures for the base registry are those that are required to be accurate and valid based on the law, and that other measures that are not legally required but are developed in practice are considered by someone else in the framework of the open data measures, or is the consideration itself considered by the Digi-Agency or the people concerned with the base registry? First of all, I'm concerned about this. To put it very simply, all the people involved in the data of private companies are the same, but there are various GIS polygon data here and there. Millions are taken just because they are not one. I can't afford that many millions. As a result of not being able to do it, what is happening is that they are doing it with tears of blood in an inconsistent way with a very strong human pillar. There are a number of ways in which this is affecting productivity, and it is clearly inhibiting corporate activities. Some things are just not attached, so it doesn't have to be accurate. If you attach it, you can use it, so there are some private citizens who have a little feeling or people who have data. There is such a situation, and we strongly hope that, if we do not do it, we will do it ourselves. In fact, we have such meetings. In such a situation, no one thinks that they are trying too hard to stick together and guarantee the accuracy. Let me tell you very strongly that it is good for us to just put a little bit of something on it.

In your previous opinion, of course, there are companies that do business with it, and I know that because I have paid millions for it. However, it is probably no longer possible for private companies. It is not only private companies, but everyone is the same. I think it is no longer possible, even though I know a lot of people who sell them by taking advantage of their needs. Since everyone does not spend that much money to buy them, I feel that if I can start selling them in accordance with everyone's feelings and needs, Japan will be a good country. This is a bit of a catchphrase, but I would like to thank you for your cooperation.

That's all. It was a little close to my opinion.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, .

May I take it that you recognize that there are many things that can be managed when you combine those feelings?

Member: Koshi ITAYA, Yes. There are quite a few things that stick together.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, I understand.

Member: Koshi ITAYA, If you stick it, it will stick. I feel like I'm trying hard to stick it.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, Let's visit again sometime in particular. Thank you very much.

What do you think, Mr. Kageyama?

Kageyama: Thank you, .

On page 5 of Handout 5, the accuracy of the map, cadastral map, and various drawings provided by the registry office is O, although there are reservations. However, as stated in the announcement, and although opinions have already been expressed, I believe that it is a well-known fact that there is a certain amount of information that lacks accuracy.

When it comes to the security of accuracy, there are some concerns about what kind of confusion will arise in practice when this inaccurate information is linked. Therefore, I feel that there is a need to improve the accuracy of information under the relationship of public-private cooperation.

One point, from around page 8 of Handout 5, we have received an explanation of the residential indication. As a point of attention, in the handout, we have received the description of the block code, but there are some areas that implement residential indication by the so-called road system, so I feel that we need to pay attention to how to handle this data.

That's all.

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

How about others?

Mr. Inadani, please.

Member Inadani: This is just my idea. It seems to be related to Mr. Itaya Koshi's talk earlier. When it comes to open data, there are quite a few people who want to create something unified, and there are already a lot of existing parts. If that is what Professor Yasunen said last time, I am very concerned about whether it is possible to create something like Wikipedia. I feel that thinking about such a good mechanism can be a solution for this part, as well as public-private cooperation. I do not have a solution right now on how to do it specifically, but I think that such a direction may be worth thinking about seriously.

Comments. That's all.

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

I don't think it can be done only by the government.

Mr. Ogiso, please.

Member Ogiso: Nice to meet you, .

When discussing this topic, I think that the discussion will not progress well if it is simply about what to do with the base registry for real estate registration. In fact, what you are all saying is that real estate-related information and information related to urban space are being worked on in various places, mainly by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, but I think that it is certainly difficult to see what will progress and how it will progress as a whole, in conjunction with the policy.

So, someone said earlier that it is a big policy, but I think that is exactly what the big policy is. In that context, I think that it is not possible to accurately discuss the data to be developed as a base registry and the data to be developed as other useful data, unless we discuss the positioning of the idea of creating real estate registration in this way in the base registry.

You are right that not all of them need to be developed as a base registry, and I have no objection to that. Currently, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and others are working on various issues, and a road map is submitted every year at the real estate ID review meeting. In the past, we at the New Economic Federation used to have a general database of real estate. In other words, information was scattered from someone earlier, and I think it was said that it was only necessary to match it. We have written proposals to that effect. For example, we have proposed to match it with the information held by the tax authorities. The whole story was written quite a lot in the old growth strategy, but I feel that it has become difficult to understand it from the middle. I think we need to discuss it while connecting it to such a big story.

That's all.

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

Is your hand up, Mr. Ogi?

Member Ogi: Thank you, .

I'm sorry to repeat what you said earlier. In this kind of talk, it is important to make it easy to understand. Also, the accuracy of the information, for example, map information, cadastral map, etc., is good or bad. The limit of the accuracy of the information is the most familiar to those who are using it now. So, first of all, I summarized the things that are separated in analog, and what I did was, as you can see on page 8, I arranged the layers of the information, including the cities, wards, towns, villages, and characters of towns. So, if I want to do a thorough investigation, I can do it. What is done and what is not done is the same as before, I'm sorry. I don't think you need to say sorry, but it is important to move forward in the form of asking people to use it as much as possible.

As for the subsequent maintenance, I am sorry for what you are saying, but there is absolutely no need for the government agency alone to shoulder the burden. The maintenance will be carried out by everyone, including the private sector, those who really want to use it, and end users. I feel that it is better to separate the issue of improving the accuracy of the maintenance from the issue of maintaining the current level. I thought it is important to maintain the system in such a way.

That's all.

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

I feel that the discussion is gradually converging, but Masujima-san, thank you for waiting.

Masujima: Thank you, .

We have been working on the improvement of laws and ordinances ahead of time, and I think there are some similarities to the discussion at that time, so I would like to introduce some. As for laws and ordinances, there are private companies that provide laws and ordinances search services, and experts like us always introduce and use such services. The government is currently operating a e-Gov, and while they are promoting a project to put all of laws and ordinances on it, there have been discussions about what to do with private sector. However, there are many differences in functions, such as improvement, convenience, speed of update, comparison between the past and the present, and so on. Experts like us need such services and continue to pay to use them. However, there are many things that ordinary people do not need such services.

The same can be said for the map information that we are currently working on. It is said that if the map information is properly prepared, for example, a world where drones fly automatically and packages are sent to eaves can be created. It is said that it is amazing. However, there must be a discussion that it is not necessary to put such things on the base registry at all. In order to make a clear distinction, who needs the information and its accuracy, and to what level it is important to provide it to the general public. This is important for the discussion on where to place this boundary.

As for the maintenance part, in that sense, I feel that there is a difference in the balance between the maintenance of the base registry, which is done by many people just like open data. Regarding the discussion on who should be in charge, my second point is that it is the responsibility of the national government to provide the data of the maintenance part properly to the people, and that it is very important how to separate the other parts.

Lastly, I think you are right about the big policy. On the other hand, listening to the talk about drones, it seems that as technology develops more and more, we can actually do this, that we can do that, and that we will be able to do this more and more. Therefore, I think that there is a part that we cannot make a policy once and follow the policy faithfully.

Therefore, I think it is right to establish a policy. However, the policy itself is undergoing considerable iterations, and the policy itself needs to be implemented. When the policy is implemented, what has been built up will also move accordingly. In any case, this is something that must be done. Therefore, I have heard that it is a bit difficult to have a head start on the idea that there is a policy and that it needs to be fixed, and that it needs to be built up one by one.

That's all.

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

Is there anyone else? Is that all right?

Now that I have heard the opinions of the members, I would like to hear the opinions of the relevant ministries and agencies. First of all, Mr. Ministry of Justice, who has jurisdiction over the Real Estate Registration Act, would like to speak to you. I would like to speak to Mr. Ohtani, Manager of the Civil Affairs Section 2.

Director of Civil Affairs Section 2, Ohtani: I am Ohtani, Director of Civil Affairs Section 2, Ministry of Justice, . Nice to meet you.

I would like to say two main things.

The first point is that we need to sort out the usage needs of the Base Registry. This is because, as mentioned in the documents submitted by the secretariat, there are some differences in the accuracy of the maps and other data held by Ministry of Justice, and the drawings are managed as image data and are not in a format suitable for secondary use. Under these circumstances, who uses the Base Registry and for what purpose, and how often it needs to be updated, will be determined. Therefore, it is important to accurately understand and sort out the usage needs.

The other point is the same. Actually, in relation to the existing system, the map and cadastral map are now widely available through the G-Space Information Center. As pointed out by several professors, the map and cadastral map are made available to the public as free open data that can be processed, and are regularly updated once a year. As a result of this initiative, I believe that some of the usage needs have been met to some extent. In addition, if it is necessary to develop a base registry and update it frequently, I believe that it is necessary to consider how meaningful it is from the perspective of cost-effectiveness.

In the future, in Digital Agency, what kind of information should be handled in the base registry will be sorted out, and consideration will be materialized based on cost-effectiveness. Ministry of Justice will provide necessary cooperation for the consideration from the position of jurisdiction over the Real Estate Registration Act.

That's all.

Member: Koshi ITAYA, As you say, GIS-related data is available, but since the data is scattered and cannot be used immediately, they are currently combined, formatted, and converted before use.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, .

Next, I would like to hear the opinion of Mr. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, who is in charge of the Act on Indication of Residence and the Local Autonomy Act. I would like to ask the Chief of the Inumaru Resident Program Section.

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

Municipalities are responsible for the implementation of the Residential Indication Act. Therefore, we believe that the understanding and cooperation of municipalities is essential for the development of base registry for address. At this point, I don't think we have decided what specific work we will ask for. Last time, there was a hearing with advanced municipalities. Today, there was also a statement by Mr. Minami, Chief of Section, Tanabe City. I would like you to keep in mind that we need to ask not only for the opinions of advanced and deeply understood municipalities, but also for the work that ordinary, less advanced municipalities can follow.

On top of that, as Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, of course, this is an important project that the entire Government, led by Mr. Digital Agency, will be promoting, so I would like to firmly coordinate and cooperate with you.

That's all.

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

Will there be any response from the office? How about Nobuura Director?

Kiyoura Director: .

As a base registry, I have color-coded it. Of course, I am not going to make a decision to develop this pink one as a base registry here, so I think it is possible to consider it as a target. Of course, as stated in the preamble of the development and improvement plan, cost-effectiveness must be verified before proceeding.

In addition, Digital Agency has a certain degree of involvement in the open data policy itself and has the basic policies themselves. In particular, there is a framework that promotes the opening of more and more data held by the government. On the other hand, as you mentioned the G-Space Information Center, I think we should proceed with consideration while paying close attention to what form is efficient and cost-effective.

Thank you for your discussion.

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

Next, I would like to move on to agenda item 4. Are the presenters in the room?

Kiyoura Director: They are all here, so please go ahead.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, .

Now, let's move on to Agenda item 4, "Handling of' Gaiji' in Commercial Corporation and Real Estate Registration Data." In order to share issues and awareness of issues in advancing the discussion, I would like to ask three people in charge of practical business to make presentations today. Next, after the presentations, we will exchange opinions.

First of all, I would like to ask the Secretariat to explain the outline of the consideration so far and the issues of the day.

Kiyoura Director: It has been discussed that there is a unique "external character" as a registered unified character in the commercial corporation and real estate registration. On the other hand, Digital Agency is involved in the system standardization of local governments, and is in the process of formulating a standard character set called "MJ +" for administrative work. When we checked how different the unified character for registration and the standard character for administrative work are, we found that there are characters that do not contain a maximum of about 7,000 characters. Among them, excluding those that are suspected of not being used in the registration, we believe that about 4,000 characters remain. This is a figure that has not yet been scrutinized, but for example, it is a figure with a question.

We have discussed the inconvenient issue of external characters many times, so I will skip it and go straight to the point that I would like you to discuss today. I would like you to discuss whether MJ + should be expanded with external characters pertaining to registration as I mentioned earlier, whether it should be organized as a separate standard, and how to look at international standardization by expanding MJ +. Of course, if it becomes an international standard, it can be used in various devices that are commonly distributed. Even if we work on such things, I think it will be a long-term effort in its own way, and since international standardization is not something that can be done right away, we are thinking of taking several years to prepare for it.

This time, we have newly added materials. In order to find out what kind of characters actually appear, we have included a few examples of external characters in trade names. However, there are a variety of characters, from a slightly regrettable character to a character that says, "What is this?" We have to deal with these characters, so I would like to introduce them.

That's all from me.

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

Next, I would like to have a presentation from a panel of experts. First, Mr. Satoshi Harada, Senior Director of Kyoto Sangyo University, would like to give an explanation. Mr. Harada, please turn on the camera and microphone and give an explanation. Thank you.

Mr. Harada, Senior Director: This is Harada .

As you can see in the handout, I am a former official of Kyoto Prefectural Government. As the CIO and CISO, I was in charge of information related matters, and I also served as the head of the Tax Affairs Division of the Kyoto Prefectural Government. In Kyoto Prefectural Government, I have been working with municipalities in Kyoto Prefecture for more than 10 years to collaborate on tax services based on the collaboration of systems. This is an initiative that will serve as a precedent for the standardization currently being worked on by the national government. We have prepared the basis of information systems through the collaboration of systems. By using the same system, we will eliminate the differences in services among municipalities. On top of that, we will work together to improve the effectiveness of our services. We are working on the collaboration, starting with collection of delinquent tax and including taxation.

Among the municipalities that are involved in this effort, there was an opinion that registration data would be received from the Legal Affairs Bureau, and that this should be incorporated into the shared system to make the labor-intensive task of taxing real estate, including land and buildings, more efficient. We decided to work on this. However, when we looked into the data, it was not something that could be easily incorporated, and we made considerable adjustments to see if something could be done, but in the end, only some municipalities that had introduced conversion software at a considerable cost were able to respond.

Both the national and local governments are in a situation where their operations are supported by their systems, so I wondered why it was so difficult just to link data between the two systems. I had a bitter experience. I have great expectations for the Base Registry's efforts this time, and I hope that you will understand that the local governments are giving enthusiastic support.

To begin with, I would like to explain the materials. As shown in slide 1, the Legal Affairs Bureau and local governments exchange information in five main areas. As shown in (iii) below, corporate information is now linked by corporate number, which is a very welcome situation. In addition, regarding (iv) and (v), there is not much difference from the private sector, so I would like to leave this aside and talk about (I) and (ii), which are information linkage related to fixed asset tax and real estate acquisition tax.

As shown in slide 2, the Legal Affairs Bureau provides data to local governments based on the law, but as I said at the beginning, the data has not been directly incorporated into the tax system of the local governments. As you can see below, the actual work is done by traditional manual labor. It is possible to display the data sent, copy it, paste it into the tax system, and search it. However, in fact, due to security reasons, I think many municipalities print it out, look at it, search it in the tax system, and input it. In addition, I repeat the process of checking the input data by comparing it with the printed data over and over again. In underpopulated areas where real estate does not move much, there is no problem at all, but in urban areas where real estate moves rapidly, the actual situation is that it is a considerable burden.

As you can see on the next slide 3, in general, the data is sent from the Legal Affairs Bureau, so it is reasonable to wonder why the local government should incorporate it into the system. There are several reasons for this. As you can see, characters other than the first and second levels are written on the slide. For example, the character "Ibaraki" in Ibaraki, which is often used in place names, has a variant character. This is a variant character because it depends on whether the "ri" part of "Nisui" is diagonal or horizontal. In addition, the "Tsuka" in Otsuka, which has been a problem for a long time, also has a variant character. Moreover, which character is used depends on the Legal Affairs Bureau, and it appears quite often, depending on the local government.

On the other hand, when it comes to a person's name, if it's a common character, it's "Saki". It's whether the character of "Saki" in Osaki is "Tate" or "Dai". It's also the same whether the character of "Taka" in Takashimaya is "Taka" or a normal "Taka". Since all the Kanji of the third level and the fourth level are sent as image files, the result is that it is very difficult to handle. In addition, we ask you to send us a CSV file. In the case of the residence notation of "Oaza Koaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza Oaza O

In addition, as I skipped it earlier, there is a blank space in between, and in the notification sent by CSV, characters converted from control characters are inserted, so it is difficult to convert and import them.

However, there are some local governments that have adopted it, and although it is not cheap or expensive to adopt it, they have introduced commercially available software and adopted it. Of course, it is expensive because it is excellent software, but it does not guarantee 100% compliance, so we have introduced it and worked on it while taking some time and effort.

As you can see on the next slide 4, why do they take in data even when they pay for it with software? As for the circumstances of the local government, there is a problem called "infallibility". If the local government makes even a small mistake, it is difficult to be forgiven, and it becomes a big problem. In the past, there were people with the same name and the same date of birth, and even if they made a mistake, the probability was 1 / 2, but strangely, they chose the wrong one, and they seized it by mistake and it became national news. In addition, errors in taxation are also pursued quite harshly. The transfer error became a big problem, but the taxation error becomes a bigger problem, so the local government is quite nervous. In order to process it reliably and reduce errors, in order to search the characters sent from the Legal Affairs Bureau and match them reliably, there is a risk of being displayed incorrectly if the character codes are different, so the staff of the local government has a strong desire to have this area unified by all means.

Another reason is that local governments are facing a serious labor shortage. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain services for local residents. If skilled personnel do not handle tasks that are not directly related to services for local residents, such as tax affairs, errors may occur. However, there is a situation in which local governments cannot afford to keep such skilled personnel in indirect departments. At a time when the population decline is not becoming any more serious, it will be a serious problem if we do not ensure that anyone can handle the paperwork. In order to do this, I would like you to avoid any differences in the level of character codes.

As you can see on the next slide 5, I said that I have high expectations for the Base Registry Conference, but if all the information is linked in code, there is nothing that can beat it. As I said earlier, the corporate number would be greatly appreciated, but in the same way, if the address comes from base registry for address, if it comes with a real estate identification number, and if the person comes with an individual number, it would be greatly appreciated, but in reality, I think it would be difficult to change to base registry for address right away. Moreover, if it is delayed any longer, the local government will lose its ability to respond due to the impact of the declining population that I mentioned earlier, and it will become difficult to respond. If it is to be changed, all the relevant parts will have to be changed, but the basis of the local government's work is land and people, so it will be a big task because it will be related to various parts. In addition, mistakes are not allowed, so I think that there are some difficult parts in reality.

In addition, I understand that it is quite difficult to use individual numbers as long as the registry is a public book and can be seen by anyone. However, considering the pressing situation of local governments, I would like to see the use of only character codes for the time being. If a different character code is introduced, the inefficiency will be fixed and there will be checking work every time, so I would like to avoid it by all means.

From the perspective of local government officials, they did not even assume that things that should be unified by the intention of departments within the same organization, such as the national government, would not be unified. I think that the fact that a different code is being discussed is itself "what is it?" The issue of individual numbers also became quite problematic, and Mr. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare and Mr. National Police Agency moved to use a different code, but I was very grateful that the national government decided to unify them. If each ministry and agency had assigned numbers separately, the burden on local governments would have been considerable, so I am very grateful for that, and I shudder to imagine if it had not been the other way around.

Local government officials believe that character codes are a public instrument, such as length, weight, and weights and measures such as meters and grams. They are not influenced by the intention of each organization, and I do not think it is possible that they will not be unified or that they will be developed separately. Just as a registry is a public book, character codes are a public instrument, so I would like the Advisory Council to come up with a direction to develop them by expanding the standard characters for administrative work. I look forward to working with you.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, . Public goods, I see. I heard a lot of needs.

Next, Mr. Tetsuya Suganuma, General Manager of the Business Reform Office at National Tax Agency digitalisation, will explain. Mr. Suganuma, please turn on the camera and microphone and explain.

Mr. Suganuma, Director: Thank you, Mr. . My name is Suganuma, Director of the Business Reform Office at National Tax Agency digitalisation. I look forward to working with you.

Now, I would like to talk about the needs for correspondence of registered information with external characters in National Tax Agency from our agency. I would like to explain from the point of view of commercial registration in the upper box of the materials shared now. In our agency, in order to realize the designation and notification of corporate numbers and proper and fair taxation, we are provided with the status of changes related to registered matters from Mr. Ministry of Justice, and we are using it in various situations. Among them, since the external characters cannot be incorporated into the main system of our agency, we are registering them in the main system by replacing them with underscores as described here. Therefore, when we need to confirm whether it is the company or not in necessary situations, we have to use another system to confirm the image data, which is an additional administrative work.

In addition, the same situation is occurring in real estate registration, and I would like to ask you to solve this problem in the development of the base registry along with commercial registration and real estate registration.

That's all for our explanation.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, Suganuma, thank you very much.

Next, Digital Agency project manager, Mr. Kenta Saikubo, please explain. Saikubo manager, please turn on the camera and microphone and explain.

Saikubo Project Manager: My name is Kenta Saikubo from Digital Agency, . As a private sector specialists, I am in charge of the Corporate Common Certification Infrastructure (gBizID) in Digital Agency. Today, I would like to talk about the character issues that I face when I work in gBizID.

First, there is an online application as a scene where a character problem occurs in gBizID. I will explain the outline of it. Based on the information of My Number Card, the first account can be issued online by holding the card over the smartphone. Behind that, the information of My Number Card and the information of registration in the Ministry of Justice's registration information coordination system are matched, and the account is issued after confirming that the person who applied is exactly the representative of the corporation. What we mainly see at that time is the name and address. By mechanically matching the character strings, we see whether the information registered in the registry and the person in My Number Card match. The name, the information of My Number Card, and the information of registration do not always match. Even though they are the same person, there are cases where the characters are different and an error occurs.

The explanation is shown on the next slide. This is only a fictitious example. When there is a person called "Miku Yamada", the My Number Card may be registered in simple characters for convenience, which is different from the characters in the family register. However, naturally, the characters in the registration are the original difficult characters. In this case, the same person, who should have the same name, may have different Chinese characters. In this case, if the characters of the same person are different, it will automatically result in an error. Therefore, a human judge is behind the person and falls back to the human judge.

The percentage is shown on the next slide. This figure was calculated based on the examination results of gBizID last year. There are approximately 70000 online applications, 90000 paper applications, and 70000 online applications. Of these, approximately 15000 fail to match first due to errors such as inconsistencies in characters. All of these 15000 cases are checked by human eyes, and there are cases where they are really wrong, and there are cases where they are just different in characters, so we are checking these cases and passing them through or stopping them. There are quite a lot of 15000 cases, and labor costs are also quite high. From the standpoint of reducing the system operation cost through efficient operation, we want to reduce errors caused by inconsistencies in characters and realize efficient operation of the system.

As for the text, I would like to ask you to improve it so that it can be processed smoothly by a uniform text standard so that such errors do not occur.

That's all for the presentation.

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

If there are any comments or questions from the members on this agenda, including the comments from the three members just now, I would appreciate it.

Kiyoura Director: office.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, Please go ahead.

Kiyoura Director: On this agenda item, Professor Hiroyuki Sasahara of Waseda University has been invited as a temporary expert committee member, and I would like to introduce him to you. I apologize for the omission of the introduction at the beginning. Thank you in advance.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, , I believe that Mr. Sasabaru will make a statement after Mr. Minami, so please make a statement after that.

Go ahead, Mr. Minami.

Member Minami: As Professor Harada said, the administration's opinion was completely correct, and I had been paying fixed asset tax for a long time, so I understood the content very well.

In addition, the reason why there are many external characters is that, in the first place, when it was a paper ledger, there were some spots that fell off with ink. I think you all know that it was hand-made, but it was reproduced faithfully as if it were a Japanese. That is why the current situation became like this. I think it is important to make use of this fact. When computerizing the ledger of the Legal Affairs Bureau, I was doing various things with the local Legal Affairs Bureau by providing them with administrative materials. That is what happened. The katakana "No" and hiragana "No" were hand-made, and "No" in "Nananoura" was different depending on the person who wrote it. These things should have been unified at that time, but there are still some left. I understand that this is not the only reason.

I was a section chief in the Information Policy Division until this March, so I was working on system standardization at the same time. However, at that stage, the national government will be changed to MJ +, and each municipality is moving to MJ +. Therefore, if you don't organize the characters of the Legal Affairs Bureau in the form of MJ + plus extension, as you said, the administrative work of municipalities will become quite complicated. Therefore, I would like you to unify these parts as much as possible.

At the same time, as mentioned in the last explanation by Mr. Digi-cho, in fact, if you check all the characters with the code, you don't have to look at the characters. Therefore, in fact, it is not necessary to link them with the My Number right now, but if you do it in the future, I think it will save labor. It is the opinion of one municipality, but the administration really wants the characters to be unified. But since this is the time, I would like you to change it to MJ +.

That's all.

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

What do you think, Mr. Sasabaru?

Sasabaru: Thank you, .

I would like to express my opinion in relation to MJ +, which is related to administrative office standard characters. In conclusion, as you have told me, I think it is better to have a single character standard for administrative use from the standpoint of a specialist. If multiple character standards are developed, there is no doubt that business efficiency will deteriorate. There is a possibility that fonts will be used differently, and there will be variations in the granularity of character codes, which we have suffered from in other character codes. There is also a constant danger that the consistency and systematization of the relationships between characters will not be guaranteed.

In addition, local governments inevitably need to support multiple character standards, which leads to an increase in the cost of supporting various systems.

In addition, as you mentioned earlier, there is a need to realize smooth data exchange between the national and local governments, but there is a fear that this may create obstacles.

For this reason, I believe that it would be good for the Government of Japan to expand the use of MJ +, which has already been positioned as a standard administrative character used by local governments, in the external characters of the current registration, and to properly handle them.

That's all.

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

It seems that the opinions of intellectuals are gradually converging.

What do you think, Mr. Kageyama?

Kageyama: Thank you, . This is Kageyama.

First of all, I believe that there are a great number of points that are causing trouble to the people related to the administration, as my kanji character is a foreign character. In addition, as you have pointed out, I myself agree with the direction of expanding the standard characters for administrative work.

As I mentioned in the first meeting, there are a certain number of clients who have a strong preference for characters. In addition to the recording of names in real estate registration, there are also cases where external characters are used for trade names in corporate registration. In particular, when deciding on a trade name, there are cases where there are people who want to use these kanji characters with a strong desire. Therefore, I think it is desirable to consider expanding the standard characters for administrative work.

As you pointed out on page 7 and other pages of the handout, the fact that it is not possible to capture data in the CSV format if there is a notation fluctuation is exactly as you pointed out. I think it is quite difficult to eliminate the notation fluctuation at once, and although I made a somewhat similar statement at the first meeting, I felt that it would be possible to consider a measure to link information well using the real estate number as a key when, for example, the real estate number is recorded in the registered notification data as unique data.

I would like to introduce some of the parts that do not require the attachment of a certificate of residence from the perspective of practical registration. At present, there are cases where the attachment of a certificate of residence is not required due to the provision of a resident registration code, and if a power of attorney or application information is electronically signed at the My Number Card, it is not necessary to attach a certificate of residence. I felt that we may consider automating the registration process by making good use of information such as the electronic certification for signatures.

That's all.

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

So, Mr. Ochiai, are you back? Here you are.

Ochiai member: I'm sorry, but I've just come back.

Regarding the issue of external characters, I believe that what Professor Kageyama mentioned is the most important point that we need to pay attention to and discuss in relation to our stakeholders.

On the other hand, I believe that there are some parts that have already been sorted out, but I think it is important to consider again whether it is a commercial registration or real estate registration itself, or whether it is a database created for the purpose of developing a database that can be processed to enable some kind of automation and mechanical processing, and making it play a role as a foundation of the government. I think that the character structure and storage contents of the database should be sorted out to contribute to mechanical processing. Otherwise, the database and base registry will not achieve their required purpose, and I think it is reasonable to sort out the database in such a way that the processing of adding external characters is not unavoidable.

That's all for my comments.

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

What do you think, Mr. Ogi?

Member Ogi: Thank you, .

I think we can say that data cleansing is the royal road of data engineering. While the main rule is to add and expand external characters, as I heard earlier, there seems to be something that can be integrated, so let's integrate what can be integrated. The most important thing is to allow everyone in the middle layer to use it as it is without any work. It is very important that the data in the upstream Legal Affairs Bureau flows as it is, and even the front-end system can be inserted as it is. I think it will be impossible in the future to investigate where and how mistakes were made in all layers time of trouble, not in normal times. I think this is a very important point. Cocco

On the other hand, for example, when it comes to adjusting to the registration, I have an image of handwriting to write the simplest and simplest characters, such as Mr. Watanabe's character "Hen" and Mr. Saito's character "Qi." I don't know how much handwriting actually occurs at the counter now, so I would like you to listen to it on that premise, but basically, everyone applies by handwriting. So, I also attach My Number Card. I think My Number Card is a relatively simple notation, and if I match it with a simple handwritten one. However, that is not the case. For example, if you find many characters that you do not use in the registration, to what extent you allow the difference between the simple characters that are usually used by those who come to the counter and the complicated characters that are not used in the registration, I think it is an analog part in the end. In the worst case, I have to rewrite many characters, and I don't want to wonder what the difference is. That is part of the reason. Therefore, it is natural to say that the use of external characters should be unified as much as possible, and on that premise, I thought that it may be necessary to think separately about how to operate the counter.

That's all.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, I see. Thank you very much.

Are there any other speakers?

Thank you very much.

Is there any response from the secretariat at this stage?

Kiyoura Director: In particular, this time, we have more or less agreed to expand this point, and in that direction, we would like to proceed with consideration of how to do specifically. Thank you very much.

Chairman Yasunen: Thank you very much, . It was good that your opinions were collected well.

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

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

Kiyoura Director: With regard to today's agenda, we will prepare the minutes, confirm them with you, and disclose them to the public. We will also disclose the materials on the Digi-Agency website.

The next meeting will be held on Monday, May 26 at 15:00.

That's all from the secretariat.

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

This concludes the second meeting of the Expert Panel on the Promotion of Base Registries.

Thank you for the lively discussion.