Base Registry Fourth Meeting of the Advisory Group for Promotion

Last Updated:: Mar 12, 2026

Overview

Date and time: February 18, 2026 (Wednesday) 13:00 to 15:00
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Agenda
  1. Base Registry Changes in the members of the Advisory Group for Promotion
  2. Status of Discussions since the Establishment of the Corporate-Based Registry Plan
  3. On the Treatment of Maps in Property-based Registries
  4. Policy on the Development of Data Lower than "Machi-aza"
3. Adjournment

Material

Minutes, etc.

Date and

February 18, 2026 (Wed) 13:00 to 15:00

US>

Held online

Attendees

Chairman

Junji Annen (Attorney at law, Professor of Chuo University Graduate School of Law)

Member

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

Observer

Haruki Kitamura (Chief of Civil Affairs Section II, Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau)
- *Representative: Yoshinori SHIMIZU (Director of the Office for Promotion of Measures for Land Whose Owner is Unknown Etc.)
Hiroshi Tanaka (Manager, Commercial Affairs Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice
Yoshiko Nakanishi (Manager of Treasury Division, Ministry of Finance Financial Bureau)
Miho Kitama (Real Estate Market Development Division, Real Estate and Construction Economics Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure

Minutes

Director Nakagawa: , I am Nakagawa from Digital Agency. I believe most of you are here, so I would like to begin the fourth meeting of the Advisory Group for the Promotion of Base and Registry. Thank you for your support.

Today, we are asking each member to participate online.
Today, Mr. Ito will be joining us in the middle, and Mr. Ochiai will be leaving the room in the middle.
As for the observers from the Personal Information Protection Commission Bureau and Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Mr. Director, the section chief, will not be present, but I believe his colleague is attending the meeting.

First of all, before the discussion, I would like to make a greeting from Director-General's camphor tree.
Nice to meet you, Kusunoki Director-General.

Director-General KUSUNOKI: Nice to meet you. I'm Kusunoki from Director-General. Thank you very much for joining us today.

The corporate-based registry has been under consideration for a long time, and it will finally be released in March this year. In advance applications, we have received applications from 14 ministries and agencies and approximately 4,000 divisions and offices from the national government, and from approximately 900 organizations and 12000 divisions and offices from local governments at this time, and I feel that we have received quite high expectations.
In addition, in the process of establishing this system, we have also received consultations from other ministries and agencies with jurisdiction over the system asking if we could utilize this system.

Based on the discussions at last year's meeting and other matters, the reorganization of the real estate-based registry, including map information, was safely included in last year's economic package, and measures were safely taken in the supplementary budget.
This year, we would like to report on the progress of the various points that we have received from you so far, and at the same time, we would like you to actively discuss the new issues that have arisen during this period, and we would like to compile it as a future maintenance and improvement plan. We appreciate your cooperation.

Director Nakagawa: .
I would now like to ask Mr. Ahn, Chairman of the Committee, to proceed with the proceedings. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Mr. , Director Nakagawa, thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, I haven't seen you for a long time. I look forward to working with you.
Today's agenda consists of the four items listed in the agenda distributed to you.

Now, let's move on to today's agenda.
I have a question on agenda item 1, "Changes in the members of the Advisory Group for the Promotion of the Base Registry." I would like to ask a question from the Secretariat.

Director Nakagawa: and others.
First of all, due to personnel changes in the Japan Federation of Land and House Investigators Associations and the Japan Federation of New Economy Associations, members Takakura and Kataoka were replaced by members Yanagisawa and Ito, respectively.
The Director of the Real Estate Market Development Division, Real Estate and Construction Economics Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism newly participated as an observer based on the issues discussed at the third "Expert Meeting on the Promotion of Base Registry."

That's all for my report.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Thank you very much. Mr. Ito and Mr. Yanagisawa, I look forward to working with you.

This was followed by Agenda item 2, "Status of Review of the Corporate Registry System after the Formulation of the System."
This is also requested from the secretariat.

Director Nakagawa:
The plan was formulated in June last year, but it is the status of consideration after that.

Please refer to page 2. As for the corporate-based registry, we are testing it with the aim of launching it at the end of the fiscal year, March 2026. At present, we are accepting applications in advance, and as shown here, many divisions and departments of both the national and local governments have applied and are expected to use it, and we are receiving high expectations.

In addition, based on the discussions at this meeting, we have completed our response regarding the protection of personal information. The purpose after the response is stated on page 4, so please confirm it.

In addition, as for the cost sharing, it is written in the cost-sharing section at the top of the table that ministries and agencies will share the cost.

In addition, regarding the scope of use in the second line of the table, based on the actual business situation, outsourcing business operators who are responsible for the administrative affairs of the central and local governments will be able to use it.

In addition, regarding the use in the private sector in the bottom line of the table, we are also considering the details of the project in 2026 with the aim of conducting a demonstration project in fiscal 2027. As for the system, we are currently considering the use of a certification system that utilizes national data, which is under consideration by the Digital Administrative and Fiscal Reform Council, a national institution.

In addition, as you can see on page 3, some local governments are starting to make efforts to omit attachments in their internal procedures on the premise of the operation of the Base Registry.

In addition, regarding external characters used for registration, we are taking steps to standardize them, including the addition of standard characters for administrative affairs, which has been developed with standardization of local government systems as a turning point.

It's simple, but that's all I have to say.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Thank you very much.
If you have any questions or comments about this presentation, please feel free to ask anyone.

Kageyama-san, do you have your hands up? Please.

Kageyama Member: Thank you very much. My name is Kageyama.
I would like to speak about the scope of use and private use on page 2 of Document 2.

Regarding the scope of use, it is understood that access rights will be granted to business operators who are entrusted with the administrative work of the national government and local governments, and access to the Base Registry will be enabled. If access to the Base Registry is enabled after setting certain conditions such as this, we believe that convenience, etc. in performing administrative work will be greatly enhanced.

On the other hand, for private use, it seems to be a system that can be used regardless of the national or local governments. Although convenience is expected to improve, I believe that it is also essential to consider the risk of abuse, as I mentioned at the 3rd meeting, due to the relationship of control.

As pointed out by Professor Inadani at previous meetings, rather than expanding the scope of the envisaged demonstration project to all of private sector, I believe it is necessary to carefully consider whether there will be any adverse effects due to the opening up by targeting business organizations and others whose public roles are emphasized, rather than expanding the scope of the project to all of Asia. In the unlikely event of improper use of information, it will not only cause social confusion, but may also lead to the burden of fees on citizens and the consumption of resources of the Legal Affairs Bureau, which is the information source, and criticism of the Base Registry itself may arise.

First of all, we believe that it is important to secure the resources of the Legal Affairs Bureau, which are under pressure, by smoothly and promptly realizing requests for official use, which are currently in great demand, and to establish a foundation for the early completion of registration, which is its primary business, and the maintenance of the latest information. Therefore, we believe that it is preferable to carefully consider the user based on the demonstration project.

That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
But at any rate, the actual operation has finally started. I am deeply moved.

Itayagoe-san, please.

Member of Itayagoshi: This is the same as the target page shown now, but I have actually been participating in a kind of expert meeting of the Digital Services Bureau of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government since January, and I sent a link to the chat column. (Secretariat supplement: The 10th Digital Services Conference )

In short, the topic of how to think about data management was raised on January 28, and I, as an expert participating in the discussion, said that it would be better to use what is available, including AI, as part of data management, such as address information and registration information, rather than having them independently by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.

Although I have not specifically talked about being able to apply from here, if there is such a connection, at this point, there are no particular applications from the Digital Service Bureau of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, so my suggestion is that it would be good to have good cooperation.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Thank you very much. Thank you for providing us with valuable information.

Member of Itayagoshi: Thank you.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Would you like anything else?
Mr. Ogi, are your hands up?

Fan Member: JDD.
It will be released in March. The first point is how it will be released. As Mr. Kusunoki mentioned earlier, including national administrative agencies and local governments, the total number will be close to 20000. Will it be released all at once? I do not understand the process of the release, but I would like to know one point.
And the operation of the business side. For example, monitoring, FAQs, etc. What are you planning to do about these? I would like to know these two points.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
What do you think about the secretariat? It's like a release procedure.

Director Nakagawa: .
[ah] First of all, [ah] the IDs will be released at the same time. [ah] If you do that at the same time, [ah] you may get a flat tire. [ah] So [ah] as soon as we receive your IDs, [ah] we'll tell you when your IDs are ready.

And one more.

Fan Member: This is the operational aspect of the business side. As the product is released, each time the number of users increases, there will be various questions and exchanges. I think this is the so-called monitoring area, in which you can see which menus are used and which are not used. What are you planning to do about this area?

Director Nakagawa: Monitoring Center. We will monitor it together with organizations that will actually be responsible for it. We will collect data in cooperation to determine what kind of data we can collect. For example, if we want to promote the use of it a little more or if there is too much use, we will once again try to level it out.

Fan Member: Certainly. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
Are you Dr. Masujima?

Member Masujima: .
The chair of the meeting created an atmosphere in which it is easy to speak freely, so I would like to hear a little about it. Although the use by the private sector is separate, I feel that the discussion is progressing in the context of discussing how to share the costs of various things that are expected to be viewed by external vendors in the registry and what restrictions are necessary. I think that there may be a mechanism in which the corporate body can tell someone that they can view it, and if they get permission from the corporate body, they can view it. I think that who will bear the cost remains a different issue. Is there a plan to develop a mechanism or a system to grant access rights at the point of view? If there is this, it is not a matter of abuse, but it is seen because the corporate body is saying that you can view it. When I apply to the government, I think it is a model that the corporate body itself says that you can view it and sees it, but I would like to hear a little about whether the same kind of thing can be done between the private sector and whether such a framework exists for private use.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Is what Professor Masujima just pointed out a problem of how to grant access or viewing rights within a user company?

Member Masujima: That's right. When it comes to private use, I feel that there are many cases in which it is talked about as if an external business operator obtains various corporate information. Therefore, there is a discussion about abuse, and there is a discussion that it should be limited to a certain public one. I understand the framework, but the question was whether or not the framework in which a person who is authorized by the data owner side to see it would be subject to verification or verification.

Chairman Annen: Mr. , what is your feeling?

Director Nakagawa: .
Thank you for pointing that out. I believe that we will conduct demonstrations to consider the points you pointed out. When we consider the contents in fiscal 2026, starting in April, I would like to include that perspective as well.
In that sense, I think Professor Kageyama also gave us a problem in that regard, so thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Thank you very much. Is there anything else you would like to point out?

Mr. Itaya, please come in.

Member of Itayagoshi: Including what you just mentioned, I would like to add two more points.
The first point is about granting access rights as you just mentioned. At this stage, it's a bit of a detail, but as an access control Architecture, role-based authorization, which is called the RBAC method, is relatively common now. Therefore, when performing this control, if you design the Architecture based on roles, which is consistent with the RBAC method, and create a mechanism to actually apply and operate it, it would be good to have a policy that makes access control easy and auditing easy. This is the first addition.

What often happens is not the solid writing method, but the point is that if the method of granting authority is written in solid writing in the front part and the DB on the back, management is very complicated, and if it is not sustainable, it is likely to cause quite a lot of trouble. Also, it tends to take a very long time to actually access it after the application is approved, so if the idea of RBAC is well used, it may be possible to make it simple and sustainable at a low cost.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .

Member of Itayagoshi: Do you think you'll be okay with this?

Chairman Annen: Mr. , have you made any plans at this point?

Director Nakagawa: .
In that sense, I myself do not know how the RBAC system can be constructed, but I would like to study it and select the most appropriate system and consider it. Thank you very much.

Member of Itayagoshi: I think it will be a lot easier. Really.

Chairman Annen: Mr. That's the first point.

Member of Itayagoshi: Yes. The first point and the other is about the addition of unified characters for registration to the standard characters for administrative affairs from page 5 of the current document. It may be a bit close to a question, but this mapping table of characters and codes should be published as open data. In short, I think it is better to publish the master of matching as open data.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Is this part of the demonstration design?

Director Nakagawa: This is not so much about open data as it is about using it in the government, and I think it will be like that if you can use it as open data. If not, please let me answer again.

Member of Itayagoshi: administration will be provided with it as a set. There are people who are not directly related to it but are affected by it as a side effect. Like us, it would be great if we could consider providing matching masters in a usable condition, whether it is open or application-based.

Chairman Annen: Mr. . Mr. Director-General, are you referring to open data at this point?

Director-General KUSUNOKI: Yes. About that matter, probably it would be better to explain it in detail somewhere else, but after it is recorded in the administrative standard characters, there are several stages of availability. First, it is mapped on the Private Use Plane called PUP in a form close to the external characters, and at that stage, we basically assume that it will be used by administrative agencies. After that, work will begin to incorporate it into the Unicode standard by ISO, etc. If that happens, it will be widely available as an international standard. As for the mapping table with the international standard, at present, the Character Information Technology Promotion Council of the Unified Family Register, etc. provides the mapping table as open data, so I think it would be very good if it could be made equivalent to it. The problem is that if it is made as open data before the standardization is completed, there are many things that have to be arranged in relation to ISO, etc. Until the standardization is completed, I think that it will have to be used within the scope of a specific purpose and a specific system by administrative agencies rather than being completely open.

However, if it is accepted as an international standard in the future, I think it would be good to release it as open data. That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .

Member of Itayagoshi: .
Thank you very much for considering the matter in accordance with the international standards. I thought it would be good to have such a roadmap specified, and although it has been closed until the official preparations are completed, if it can be confirmed that it will be used at their own risk under an approval system, it may be possible to release it partially on a trial basis. I think that the way of announcing and releasing the move that it is okay if it is used at their own risk, although they are not responsible for it, is like a Reiwa country. Reiwa

That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. I see. That's the way Reiwa is.
The points of the international proposal are clearly stated in Slide 7, so it is naturally within our scope. Thank you very much.

Member of Itayagoshi: .

Chairman Annen: Mr. , thank you for waiting.

Ochiai: Thank you very much. There has been a lot of progress, and I felt it was wonderful. I would like to ask a few questions.
The first is the positioning of the development and improvement plan in the first half. For gBizID, I believe consideration is underway, including the development of legislation. In that case, in terms of identifying use cases and roles, I believe there will be cases where it is assumed that gBizID will be used and cases where the base registry will be accessed. Regarding the division of roles and future development between gBizID and the current base registry, gBizID is under the jurisdiction of METI, and although it is already official, there are some that will be further formalized. So my first question is how the division of roles will be divided.

The second point, which has recently been discussed at the regulatory reform Promotion Meeting, is to make it easier to use the non-display of the address indication in the registry. On the other hand, there is also a discussion on how to lift the access restriction. Regarding the registry itself, the governance rules for data have changed. From that perspective, the second point is whether there will be any changes in the development and improvement plan.

The third point is unique characters for registration. While promoting international standardization, I would like to study it by all means, but I also thought that by entering the ISO code, a unique number will always be assigned, not only in the national system but also in the private sector system, the characters themselves will not be specified twice, and that it will be easier to perform machine processing not limited to the government. Although it was actually triggered by the national government's examination this time, I also thought that the main point was to make Japanese characters themselves easier to process by machine. I have not fully understood the contents of the ISO for character codes, so I would like to know about it.

Chairman Annen: Mr. , what do you think? If you have any comments at this point, please let us know.

Director Nakagawa: .
I received three documents in order. First of all, I would like to speak about gBizID. In relation to the opening of gBizID to the private sector, I understand that it is not necessarily the case that registration information itself will be provided, but I would like to organize them separately. Thank you very much.

In addition, I believe you also mentioned the non-disclosure of the residence of the representative of the regulatory reform Promotion Council. I believe we will be formulating rules in conjunction with Mr. Ministry of Justice, so in that sense, we will be working in close cooperation in the future.

With regard to the last question about the characters, in a nutshell, I believe that international standardization will make it possible for the private sector to use and utilize the codes, and in that sense, I believe that this is an initiative that is not limited to the public sector. Has this been answered?

Ochiai: Thank you very much. I understand each of them well.
Regarding your first question, I believe that corporate numbers, etc. in registrations will be basic identifiers for corporations, and base registries are also meaningful in the sense of promoting such use. On the other hand, there is a possibility that parts that can be handled and accessed by gBizID will be built more user-friendly by gBizID, even if they are not necessarily handled by the base registry. In that case, even in relation to private use, it seems that duplicate development is not necessarily necessary for those whose needs can be resolved by gBizID. If you can sort out the relationship, I think it will be involved in the sorting out of private use.

"Although it is difficult for me to say what should be done specifically because there are parts that I have not fully grasped, I would like you to sort them out and consider the investment in the system and the scope of use in an appropriate manner."

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
I think it is natural to spend what is available with what is available. Thank you very much.

Then, let's move on to Item 3 of the agenda, "Treatment of Maps in Real Estate-Based Registry," which has been an issue for a long time, but I would also like to ask for your cooperation.

Director Nakagawa: Thank you very much. The third item on the agenda is Attachment 3.
Here we are. We are very much interested in the use of maps. As time is running out, I will stop here to explain, but we are hoping for a considerable economic effect.

Page 3 is the estimate. Page 4 is for reference. It describes where the map information is used by national institutions. This is also used for calculating the tax base and checking properties.

The next five pages are for local governments, which are also used as the tax base, but they are used more for public works projects, which is quite typical of local governments, and in that sense, the policy effects have been recognized.

Page 6, please. We are conducting a questionnaire survey of local governments. As for the summary of the results, there were quite a few responses that if map information and various drawing information cannot be obtained online, official requests will not decrease. In addition, there are quite a few cases, as shown in this table.

Page 7 is about the total effect of the policy. When the real estate registration base registry is introduced, it is stated that the reduction of document attachments is of this scale.

With regard to the cost of this project, I cannot give too many details as it relates to future procurement. However, the estimated cost of the project is several hundred million yen, and the operating cost is in the first half of several hundred million yen. In terms of cost effectiveness, I think it would be appropriate to have such an effect.

The following pages show the image on the map when you enter the drawing, and we are aiming for a screen where you can see the registration information by clicking on the map.

I'm sorry to rush, but that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Please go ahead. This is a really, really big problem.
Mr. Itaya, please come in.

Member of Itayagoshi: It will be over in a moment.
I think this case is for administrative use, but I would like you to consider providing it to the private sector, even if it is charged. Especially if it is just map information and registration information. It is essential for Real estate technology. That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. registry information plus map information.

Member of Itayagoshi: That's right.

Chairman Annen: Mr. That's true. If you can't jump to the map information, you won't know where this land is on the earth just from the information in the registry, so you'll know.

Member of Itayagoshi: That's right. That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. and Mr. Kageyama, in that order, please.

Prof. Minami: . Nice to meet you.
For the time being, including from the standpoint of the government, it is OK to release the map, but as I have been saying, if it is an Article 14 (1) map, a highly accurate one will be provided through a cadastral survey. This is published on the national registration information system, so it is open data. If we develop this, we will be able to do that. However, for maps where a cadastral survey has not been conducted, there are areas where the degree of accuracy is required for clear positional relationships. Unless these areas are sorted out, rights will inevitably emerge even if they are released, so I would like you to consider how to deal with them.

Also, I don't know if it's directly related to this, but local governments, especially municipalities, have made land and house status maps for property tax purposes. These are so-called lot number maps, and some municipalities have made them into open data and made them available to the public. However, in relation to the confidentiality obligations under the tax law, there are no clear standards on how much information can be made public. It's not that there aren't some, but the line is not clear.

As for the real estate, the name is not shown on the data, but it is available to anyone on the registry, and the name of the registered owner is shown. Unless these are sorted out to a certain extent, I think it will be difficult to use it for secondary use. First of all, since this is the base registry of real estate registration, I think it would be better to disclose the so-called registration drawing.

That's all for me.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Thank you very much. That's right.
Then, Kageyama-san, Ogi-san, please.

Kageyama Member: Thank you very much. My name is Kageyama.
I am very sorry for the very small details, but I am aware that the image diagram shown on page 9 is only an image of the current situation. It is the part that flies from the red frame to the right figure. In this Section B part, probably as an indication of the obligor, the Japanese representative is written, and it seems that the name John Smith is recorded. On the other hand, when the registration of the settlement of the mortgage is made, if the obligor is a corporation, the representative of the corporation is not registered. Therefore, I think that the matters that cannot be determined from the real estate registration record are indicated. I made the remarks because I felt that if the information of the representative of the obligor is extracted and incorporated into the information of the base registry, there is a possibility that it will return to the specifications and costs in procurement.

That's all.

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

Fan Member: Of course, I would like this system to be promoted in the private sector, but on the other hand, I understand that transactions occur quite frequently, so I am honestly worried about whether the computers and networks used by local government users are safe. This is just my image, but I think we are in an environment where it is very difficult to actively invest in such things. I feel that the people who need to be the most productive are using the most shabby terminals, so I think it is okay to say out loud that please invest in what you need, such as providing recommended terminals or specifications. I think this is a world that cannot be solved by the virtue of frugality, so I would like to ask for your support.

That's all for me.

Chairman Annen: Mr. Are you using such a shabby PC?

Fan Member: I don't know, but when I talk to people, I hear that they often fail, and I hear that they fail when they use Outlook, Teams, and Portal.

Chairman Annen: Mr. If that is true, it is a serious problem.
Mr. Ito, please.

Prof. Ito: Thank you, New Economy Federation. I will be participating for the first time today. I look forward to working with you.
Regarding the base registry of real estate, there was an opinion earlier that it would be used by the private sector. I would like to talk about it in relation to this. For example, there is a database of real estate information published by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, and it would be nice if it could be overlaid with it. What is there, for example, can be overlaid with city planning maps, hazard map-like information, and land market value publication prices. In short, there are various values listed there. If data can be overlaid in the form of GIS, not only from the perspective of private use, but also for example, evacuation routes can be confirmed. I think it can also be used for administrative purposes. I would like you to consider how to develop such a database, which is the very base of real estate information.

That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
Then, I think you have already made some remarks. What do you think, Mr. Nakagawa?

Director Nakagawa: Thank you very much. I would like to share with you what I know now.
First of all, with regard to the current lot number map and other publicly available information that I received from the members of the Southern Community Association, it also appears a little in the section below Machiaza on the data maintenance policy, so I would like to report it there as well and discuss it if necessary. Thank you very much.

Also, Kageyama, I received this information from one of the members. It's about the representative of the corporation. We will be able to correct any inappropriate information before it is made public. However, you will be able to view this information, so in that sense, I think it is very important to manage the area you can view with an ID or something. Thank you very much.

Also, I would like to ask about the matter of the terminals of local public bodies, which I received from the Ogi members. There was a lot of discussion about that, and when I said that machine power is quite difficult, no, there was also talk about a similar situation at a national institution. If there is a layer structure, the number of transactions will increase, and the content of processing will also increase, so I thought it was necessary to proceed while carefully listening to the opinions of local public bodies and everyone about whether or not this is feasible. Thank you very much.

Lastly, as I received from Mr. Ito, it will be done within the layered structure of overlapping urban planning maps, etc. This is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, but if it is done, I think it will be done through discussions with them, but I think it will also be a matter of how far the base registry will be placed.

That's all for now. Thank you.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
Mr. Ogi, however, due to the shortage of semiconductors, the price of PCs has gone up a lot, so it's pretty tough. Everything is tough.

Fan Member: That's right. It is serious.

Member of Itayagoshi: It's not funny.

Chairman Annen: Mr. It's really not funny, is it? After all, no amount of database maintenance is worth it if you can't use the machine power in the first place.

Fan Member: From a medium - to long-term perspective, I think it would be better if they send a message that 16 is 16 and how many years later you should buy a 16.

Chairman Annen: Mr. . That's a blind spot. Thank you very much.
As a final discussion, I would like to move on to "About the policy of data maintenance lower than" Machiaza "".
This too, Nakagawa-san, please.

Director Nakagawa: I would like to explain Document 4.
The next page is what I would like you to discuss today. Although it is lower level information than Machiaza, we have come to know that local governments are mainly managed by paper ledgers, and that the development of public coordinates for lot numbers is limited, so we have decided to deal with it.

In addition, regarding the indication of residence, since this kind of work is also a common office work of local governments, there are instructions for consideration such as the government sharing the system. Therefore, I would like to consider this part and I would like you to discuss it.

It will continue from page 3 to 4 and 5, but as this is a review of what we have done so far, I would like to omit a detailed explanation, but regarding the indication of residence, as I said earlier, how to digitize what is done with paper ledgers and link it to existing systems, and regarding the handling of lot numbers, in addition to the mechanism to update data on points with public coordinates, which we discussed earlier on the handling of maps on the real estate base registry side, I think we need to consider something like putting arbitrary coordinates on maps.

These are summarized on page 6. In terms of data, I believe that the key points in the future will be the digitization of ledgers for non-paper items, the development of usable data for public coordinates, and the selection of alternative maps and incorporation into maps for arbitrary coordinates.

From page 7 onward is an introduction to the move by the national government to standardize administrative work among local governments, which I briefly mentioned earlier.

It is on page 8. The name of the organization is the Digital Administrative and Financial Reform Council, which is in Cabinet Office, and it is waving flags there. It states that administrative work shared among local governments should be standardized to a certain extent at the national level in order to reduce costs and ensure a certain level of quality.

If you go to page 9, the address and location information management system equivalent to base registry for address, which is discussed by everyone in relation to Digital Agency, is also a candidate for standardization in that sense.

Pages 10 and 11 contain detailed information, so I will omit them. However, local governments have also proposed that this should be done.

On page 12, you can see how the standardization of this system is progressing. We have conducted individual hearings and questionnaires, and from April 2026, we have been developing a pilot system and verifying its operation. We are now calling the public call of the local government that is cooperating with us.

After this summer, we will proceed to grasp the actual situation in conjunction with the consideration of a base registry. Also, instead of consolidating everything into a single common system, there are municipalities that have already introduced it, so I think it is necessary to first verify what a common system should be as a demonstration project, being aware of the division of roles with them.

From page 13 onward, I will be a little more specific. The systemization of the residence indication ledger has not been implemented, and 72.7% have not yet become a system, so this is what is called a paper ledger. Among municipalities, 88.5% are asked about the contents of the residence indication representative. In addition, a considerable proportion of them respond to information disclosure requests from outside, so we found that they are taking time.

On page 14, examples of best practices have been found in the surveys of local governments. Many organizations accept application for building confirmation and notification of new construction, but we have also found cases where these two are coordinated. As shown in the figure on the lower left, after the application for building confirmation is found, if it is a residence, it is usually combined with notification of new construction in the form of (1) and (2). However, in some advanced local governments, there are cases where the division in charge of application for building confirmation and the division in charge of housing indication are coordinated with each other. This is because there are many cases where notification of new construction is not made, mainly for commercial facilities. I think it is a quite big story that there are organizations that have established administrative work to comprehensively specify the number.

Please go to page 15. If such a system were to be introduced, the policy effects within the organization alone would be approximately 1.8 billion yen. The policy effects of utilizing the developed data by other administrative agencies or private sector are not included here and are planned to be separate.

Please jump to page 17. This is an image of the development of a common system. As I said earlier, some are using paper ledgers, some are partially systematized, and some are already quite systematized. We will absorb these differences to some extent with a common system, and those that have each system will cooperate, and those that only have paper ledgers will be assigned to the management function of residence indication information. We will make this a system that can be selected according to system requirements, and regarding data provision, there are other administrative agencies and private sector above, but we are considering centralizing it and developing the necessary data.

Page 19 is an image. In this way, if we overlay land lot number information and residential indication information, we may be able to answer that it is a place like what Mr. Minami mentioned earlier, and if we overlay aerial photographs, we will be able to know the land category.

On page 20, there is an example of what local governments are worried about. In the case of new construction, the residence indication is often reported, but there are examples where the fact that the building has disappeared has not been fully captured. We have a hypothesis that if we systemize this and combine the information, for example, if the background map is updated and we can see that the building is missing, we can capture the loss of the building. I think this depends to some extent on the frequency of map updates, but I think this can also be done by systemization.

The next page is page 21, which is the point I would like you to discuss today. The first one is, do you have any useful data about the arbitrary coordinates of the lot number?

The second point is the possibility of improving data quality through systemization. When developing data, it is important to capture the needs of users. However, in the first place, the entity that has the information on which the data is based, in this case, local governments, will be the ones to do it. If we do not promote it in a way that appeals to their incentives, in that sense, it will not lead to the efficiency of other administrative agencies or the private sector. I am aware that it is important to pursue their operational efficiency. I would appreciate it if you could also discuss whether it will lead to that.

That's all for the explanation. Thank you very much.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
Now, please make your remarks.

Please go ahead, Minami-san.

Prof. Minami: .
This is related to what I mentioned earlier, but I think it is important to organize the lot number map. On the right side of page 5 of the document, for example, it is 1-193 where real estate information is listed. The building above it looks as if it straddles 194 and 193. If you drop an aerial photo or something, the angle is inevitably like this. This is the original shape of the building, if it has been cadastral surveyed, it will be this shape. In addition, is the building slightly taking the shape of the roof?

I will return to the previous base registry. For example, in the case of a registered house plan, if the first floor is a very small building, will the plan of the first floor be taken down or will the largest part of the top floor be taken down? Also, this is only based on an aerial photograph, so it is a plan taken from above, so it is almost a roof style. The roof may be, for example, the third floor is the largest and the second floor is small. It is not clear if this is the case. If you do not use it after understanding these points, although it may be said that it is ambiguous how to understand these things. If you do not understand these points, it is difficult to organize them. Therefore, as Mr. Digital Agency pointed out, I think it is easiest to understand by focusing on the points.

And for the roof or something like that, leaving aside whether it is good or bad to call it by its appearance, I think it would be easier to understand if you could make it easier to understand. If we talk about it in detail, whether it is sticking out or not, various rights will come up, and including the arrangement of these things, the registered building drawing and strictly speaking the construction drawing will be slightly different in terms of the area of the wall core and column core, so it will be necessary to arrange them in various ways based on these points.

As for the lot number map, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's Geospatial Information Division Laboratory is gathering opinions this fiscal year. I will post it on the chat later, but it is being held here, and there is a page that says that there is only information on the number, not the name of the individual. Therefore, it is necessary to include the MLIT's view, as well as the view on tax information on fixed assets and the view on real estate registration, and then express the indication of residence.

I'm sorry it's been a long time. Lastly, you just mentioned the loss of buildings. I don't think there are many buildings that are not registered in the area where the address is indicated. There are buildings that are not registered in the first place. If this is a fixed asset, it is a registered building. And even if it is not registered, it is subject to taxation. I think it is listed on the house map that is regarded as a fixed asset, and it is listed in the data. However, the number of buildings in the registry is different from this, and the count of loss in the address indication is also different. Unless we sort this out, of course there will be a time lag, but I think it will be important to consider how to operate it in the future.

By the way, our city has made 30% of the housing sign data earlier, so we are doing various things, and we have had such experiences so far, so I talked about it based on such experiences.

That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
You may need to decide not to organize various things.

Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai: .
In other words, I think it is necessary to judge how to organize them. The purpose of preparation differs depending on the drawing, and the original information of the measurement may also differ. Therefore, if it becomes information that divides the property world, it may be public or private, but it may directly affect the rights and obligations between private persons. If so, it seems that the question of whether it is okay to judge only by the general appearance will come up.

However, on the other hand, if it is only for the purpose of administrative management, I think that there are cases where it can be arranged by making it clear that the drawing is prepared for the use according to the granularity required for management, and by ensuring that the user uses it with care.

In addition, although it is not impossible to check the address indication and lot number precisely, it is very difficult work, and there are many cases where it is not enough just to search by AI. In that sense, it is better to specify the purpose of use and consider the sufficient range in light of the management purpose first when using such a thing.

On the other hand, in the actual survey of business operations, in the case of urban areas, I think there is a problem that those that cross borders belong to different lot numbers as I mentioned earlier, but in mountainous areas, I think it can be a matter of how to use satellite photos instead of aerial photos. The accuracy of determining abandoned farmland has also improved, and I think it will reach a considerable level in about a few years. Whether the same method can be applied to urban areas needs to be examined from the perspective I mentioned earlier, but if there are cost advantages depending on the location, I think it may be possible to combine multiple methods.

The other point is about the update of the best practice in (ii). I think that the point of collecting and updating data, which I mentioned earlier as another point, is exactly the case. The question of who the owner of the data is depends on the content, and I think there are two situations where the ownership itself should be considered, one is the ownership of the building and the other is the ownership of the land. On the other hand, for certain administrative management purposes, there seem to be situations where it is better to be able to update information if there is other information that can be collated, which is a problem if the information is not updated. In addition, there are practices that can be evaluated as substantially performing the same work by human power even if they are not systematized, which I thought again.

There are various issues as to whether or not it is good to renew all of them from the perspective I mentioned earlier. However, I believe that it is reasonable to automatically renew them to a certain extent. I believe that it would be better to actively work on it to a certain extent so that there will be no rework.

There were some parts that lacked unity, but that's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
Mr. Masushima, please.

Member Masujima: .
Recently, I have been talking about real estate. I am not sure if this is the result of Taiko-kenchi (the nationwide land survey conducted by Hideyoshi TOYOTOMI) or not, but I have been talking about the need to keep land on the books since that time. Basically, we started by trying to grasp the situation and collect taxes. In the Meiji period, we developed various systems and worked on it. However, in the end, there were a lot of extremely inaccurate things called cadastral map and dango, and even in legal practice and in other areas, there are cadastral map and other things, but I believe that society as a whole recognized such low expectations that the relationship of rights is not determined by these things.

We will improve quality in various ways, but in the end, based on what I hear from you, I feel that it is only a matter of degree, or that it is important that we all agree on the recognition that we can make accurate things with this, that the relationship of rights will not be decided unambiguously with digital technology, and that we will improve it with this expectation.

There are various stories such as the use of drones to transport objects, but it is not that accurate to use this map, and there are discussions that it may be inaccurate as a result of overstating expectations with the use of various civilian applications. I think it is better to start with the overall picture of something that is not accurate at all but has been made a little better by using digital technology.

Then, in the end, what kind of data will be used and how it will be done will be considered as work to make things that are not so big in the first place better little by little using data, so any data can be used. If it gets better even a little, it will be good enough. There are many areas where we can talk about digital superposition, which is not the area of institutionalization or law, and I think that will not result in easier or worse usability. If we say let's make it accurate or something like that, we will start from the point where we have to be accurate. As you mentioned earlier, it will be a strange discussion about whether it is the roof, the first floor, or the second floor, or we will be drawn into a discussion about where the border of the land is. I thought that there would probably be an unfortunate part that would be more unfortunate if it goes in that direction.

In conclusion, I thought that it would be good to use the information that can be used rather freely digitally to make it better, although it is not related to the boundaries of the legal system or rights and obligations at all, although I may be scolded by people who are doing Real estate technology.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
I think this is what Mr. Itaya Koshi calls Reiwa style.

How about Mr. Itayagoshi? Then, Mr. Ito, please.

Member of Itayagoshi: .
I would like to ask two questions. First, I agree with what you have just said. First, as I have mentioned in previous meetings, we would like to have a set of address information, such as 1-chome, 1-banchi and 1-1, and we would like to give a unique ID to each location. I think it would be better for the government to do so, so I would like to ask you to consider that as well. First, although it seems to be a long way off, I strongly hope that the private sector will take advantage of that, so I think it would be better for all three parties to absorb the address information as a set.

The second point is about accuracy. As an actual technical point of view, I think there was a discussion about polygons on page 20. When you draw a polygon, it has a lot of very small polygons, so it costs a lot and the drawing should be quite heavy. This is not accurate, but rather, it is a strong value to be able to understand it quickly electronically. Depending on the situation, there may be a technical approach to replace it with a mesh polygon of 1 meter mesh. In that case, the accuracy will decrease. As you all discussed, please do it separately for accuracy. Why is this? I think it would be good to convey the disadvantages and precautions for use as a communication design together with the value that it would be hard without it, that it would be easier.

If I were to speak psychologically, I would say a two side message. By presenting not only the advantages but also the disadvantages together, there is a method to increase the credibility that we originally wanted to convey. It is very effective for people with strong critical thinking or high intellectual levels. Therefore, I think that recognizing communication in this meta way is a kind of administrative messaging in the style of the Reiwa.

Also, for accurate image capture, if you input the latitude, longitude, and dots of the location in the map display and image capture date in AI, you can now easily use AI to automatically look up the link, so I thought it would be super nice for the site if you could add the idea of looking at the paper capture for accuracy as a bonus.

That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
Then, Ito-san, Minami-san, please.

Prof. Ito: Thank you, .
I am not sure where I should talk about it, and I am not sure if it fits in with the discussion here. It seems that the information on the map and the display method are intertwined, but I would rather talk about the display method.

I think that originally there was an idea of one building per one piece of land, such as drawings or houses, but now there are complex houses and complex buildings, and I think that there are many places where the information between the people who own or live and the buildings on the map is one to-many. For example, if it is used for confirming the information of the people who live, or confirming the fixed asset tax, or confirming whether or not the house is vacant while looking at the status of utility expenses, I think that it is not enough to indicate the building number.

This applies to corporate registration as well, but there are places where even room numbers are not necessarily required, and I have always thought that the one to-one correspondence is not possible. Therefore, from the perspective of properly discussing how to display data, I think that this is also important. In short, I think we need to consider inputting things such as floors and room numbers into the displayed information. This may not be solved overnight, but I would like to raise such issues.

That's all. Thank you.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
This has been going on for a long time. I've heard for a long time that if you don't know things like the room number and the direction of the entrance, the final usability won't be that good. I think it's quite reasonable.

Mr. Minami, please.

Prof. Minami: , I'm sorry to say this again and again. As you said earlier, there is a term Reiwa style, which refers to a fuzzy or rough shape of a building. Personally, I think it is better to build buildings in accordance with the style. This is because if there is a problem with the building data or the tax map, or if there is a problem with the rights, it is very difficult for the municipal government to deal with it. If it is not understood as a drawing for taxation, or if it is understood as a drawing that has been surveyed and measured, it is difficult for the municipal government to deal with it. It is OK in municipalities where a 100% cadastral survey is conducted, but in cities like ours, only about 40% of the cadastral survey has been completed, and the remaining areas do not have any drawings for taxation. Therefore, there is a problem of what to do in such areas.

Also, as Mr. Itoh said, for things like identifying vacant houses, there are many municipalities that are probably using it in their GIS. However, if it were to be published on a national website like this, it would be quite heavy, and of course, there would be a need for legislation related to specific personal data. So, first of all, the point notation that Mr. Digital Agency is promoting. I thought that at this stage, it would be better to have the point notation at this position so that we can take the first step.

Anyway, from the municipality's point of view, if it is made into a rule, it is very difficult to return it later, and it takes a lot of effort. So, of course I agree that it is convenient to use, but I would like you to consider a little bit about that.

Sorry. It's too long. That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
Then, would you give a response to Director Nakagawa?

Director Nakagawa: Thank you very much for your various discussions.

Chairman Annen: Mr. There are many.

Director Nakagawa: Minami As you pointed out, the lot number and the building certainly straddle each other. This is not only in the diagram, but I have heard that there are many cases in reality, so I think it is very important.
What you are looking at now is, in that sense, in base registry for address, the purpose is a little different from the property-based registry. That kind of communication is very important. As the member of Itayakoshi said, we can go this far, but we will not guarantee it from here. It is very important to communicate well.
My colleague gave me a few examples, and I think it is a very useful example that Tokyo Metropolitan Government's drawings, which are partially open to the public, have reservations on the right side, and they clearly write that this does not indicate the relationship of rights.
In that sense, it may be a super database, and it may be possible to know something like a room number, but I would like to see how far the government can go, and I think that private companies are making a lot of business, so I would like to see how we can balance these aspects.

Also, I think there is talk that the current lot number map should be aligned with the legal position and other aspects that need to be sorted out to a certain extent. This was also said by members from the South, but in that sense, I think there are local governments that value rights when dealing directly with citizens, and I asked them while consulting with the relevant ministries and agencies about how these should be sorted out.

Thank you very much for your input on so many aspects.

Chairman Annen: Mr. , I have gone through today's agenda. Thank you very much. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your active discussions as always.
Let me give you a little bit of my opinion. At my age, I think I need to learn a little bit about it. There is a book written by a great economic history professor at Keio University about how the land-tax reform of the Meiji period and the division of public and private land progressed, and how the villages that have existed since the Edo era have changed. I am reading it. What is surprising is that the weak Meiji government did such a good job of this project. They determined the land and the owners for each stroke. It is a tremendous project.

When I think about it, the compilation of the Base Registry that we are doing right now has a significance that can be said to be the 21st century version. It is a project to make such information multilateral and accurate, and I think it is positioned as an answer to a problem that has existed for more than a hundred years.

In the future, the opening up of Japan's markets to the private sector and the shift to open data will certainly be demanded, and indeed they are. In that case, the system must be made to be as expandable as possible. In order to do that, a lot of money is needed. It is very difficult to make it expandable, although it is easy to say. Therefore, in order to do that, a lot of budget must be allocated, and in that regard, I strongly felt that Mr. Digital Agency must do his best, including that point.

Also, this is the Reiwa system that Mr. Itaya Koshi mentioned. As other teachers pointed out, it is not perfect, so we all work together to make it perfect, and of course we aim for perfection as the ultimate form. However, it must be made clear that it is not perfect at this time. I think we must control and manage expectations on this point.

And another thing, what I just said is a bit like a dream for the future, and the oburoshiki can be expanded, but I understood that it was what Mr. Kageyama said at the beginning. He said that it was all right if that happened in the future, but first we have to solidify our foundation, I think. That's exactly right. If we don't solidify our foundation, we will not be able to gain credibility, so I would like to conclude today's discussion by saying that we should first solidify our foundation with the actual operation close at hand. Thank you very much for today.

We have also received some assignments for the Secretariat. We would like to ask the Secretariat to organize them and report the results of the discussions at the next and subsequent meetings.

Finally, please contact us from the secretariat.

Director Nakagawa: .
The next meeting will be held on Monday, March 30 at 10:00. Thank you for your attention.
In addition, except for the minutes of today's meeting that were closed to the public, I will prepare the minutes and ask everyone to review them. After that, I will make them public.
I would also like to disclose today's materials on the website of the Expert Panel of the Base Registry, except for the closed proceedings. Thank you very much.

That's all.

Chairman Annen: Mr. .
Those of you who are here for the first time today may not be aware of this, but the predecessor of Mr. Nakagawa, to whom I have just given an explanation, decided to call the Study Group "Bellabou" for short, and the fourth meeting of "Bellabou" will be concluded.

Thank you very much.