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 ".

First meeting of the Advisory Council on the Standardization of Characters for Local Government Information Systems

Last Updated:

Overview

Date and

Tuesday, January 7, 2025, from 17:00 to 19:00

US>

Sabo Hall and online conference

Agenda

  • 1. Opening
  • 2. Agenda
    • 1. Current initiatives related to character standardization in local government information systems
    • 2. Matters for Discussion
    • 3. Exchange of Views
  • 3) Closing

Material

Relevant policy

Summary of the Proceedings

Date and

January 7, 2025 (Tue) 17:00 - 19:00

US>

Sabo Kaikan and online

Attendees

*Honorifics omitted

Chairman

Masahiko Shoji (Professor, Faculty of Sociology, Musashi University)

Member

  • Junko Obata (Professor, Nihon University Graduate School of Law)
  • Shoji Goto (President and Representative Director, Regional Informatization Research Institute Co
  • Hiroyuki Sasahara (Professor, Waseda University)
  • Kenichi Shirato (Manager of Health Promotion Section, Health and Welfare Department, Mitaka City)
  • Satoshi Harada (Senior Director of DX Promotion at Kyoto Sangyo University)
  • Yusuke Masaki (Vice-Minister for Digital Transformation, Chief Officer of Digital Agency, Kobe-shi)
  • Jun Inumaru (Manager, Resident Program Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • Ichiro Nagose (Director of digital infrastructure Promotion Office, Resident Program Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • SAKURABA Satoshi (Manager, First Civil Affairs Division, Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau) * Absent
  • Takayuki Director (First Civil Affairs Division, Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau)
  • MINOHARA Tetsuhiro (Director, Data Standardization and Quality Improvement Support, Digital Agency Digital Society Common function)

Associate member

  • Masahiro Kamanaka (INES Corporation)
  • Sayaka Yazawa (NEC Corporation)
  • Hiroaki Aoki (Hitachi Systems, Ltd.)
  • Chikahisa Omura (Fujitsu Japan Co., Ltd.)
  • Makoto Kawaguchi (FUJIFILM System Service Co., Ltd.)
  • Yuki Hayase (Ryobi Systems Co., Ltd.)
  • Masakazu Yoshida (RYOMO SYSTEMS CO.,LTD.)

Agenda

  • 1. Current initiatives related to text standardization in local government information systems
  • 2. Matters for Discussion
  • 3. Exchange of Views

Handouts

  • Appendix 1: Outline of the Advisory Council on Character Standardization in Local Government Information Systems
  • Document 2: Establishment and Operation of Public Relations Working Team and Specialized Working Team
  • Appendix 3: Considerations for Character Standardization in Local Government Information Systems

Agenda

  • The Expert Committee was established in accordance with the outline of the meeting shown in Document 1, and the members were as shown in the attachment. Professor Masahiko Shoji of the Faculty of Sociology, Musashi University was appointed as the chairperson. Mr. Satoshi Harada and Mr. Shoji Goto were appointed as the Public Relations Working Team Chief and the Specialized Working Team Chief, respectively, as shown in Document 2.
  • The Secretariat gave explanations on "Efforts in this fiscal year for character standardization and the current status of character identification," "Outline of the Study Group on the Operation of Character Requirements for Local Government Information Systems," "Composition of this Expert Committee," and "Points of discussion at the Expert Committee and each WT."

Interpellation

Member: As for the gaiji to be used this time, especially for the family register, the secretariat explained, "There are various characters in the family register depending on the cursive characters and writing habits." To supplement this, in addition to cursive characters and writing errors, there are also zoji, characters that Japanese people have intentionally created by combining them based on the composition of Chinese characters. Such characters have played a part in Japanese kanji culture. Since gaiji will be one of the discussions this time, I think that a view of gaiji will also be important. There are other types of characters in addition to the character style, such as Watanabe no Be (Nabe), and I think that the extent to which they will be digitized in the future is an important issue for this conference.

Member: Am I correct in understanding that what you just said corresponds to Page 3 of Material 3?

Member: That's right. If this material is to be utilized in the future, it would be good if it included the word shuzo, such as "in the family register by kuzushiji, penmanship, and shuzo."

Member: I have four questions.
The first point is about the obligation and schedule of character identification. On page 13 of Document 3, it says, "It is essential to identify the' gaiji' currently in use as the administrative work standard character by FY 2025." Is this an obligation for local governments? I understand that this project is being promoted based on the Standardization Act. I don't think all of standard compliance system will complete the transition within FY 2025, but if the deadline for the character identification work is extended accordingly, the characters on the non-reformatted family registers will be reported to Digital Agency every year from now on. The deadline for character identification should be set separately from the standardization deadline, so shouldn't the deadline be shown to local governments by saying, "Please be sure to submit it to Digital Agency by when?"

The second point is about publicity and treatment of the subjects. Although each local government makes a certain amount of publicity at its own discretion, it recognizes that individual notification is not always given to the subjects to be identified. However, there is a possibility that the subjects will say, "My kanji is not this" after identification. In that case, what kind of measures will be taken?

The third point is about the legal basis. At present, the Character Identification Procedure Manual and the Character Inclusion Guideline are presented as technical advice. If it is considered as technical advice, the final decision is the responsibility of the local government. However, even if the local government can identify the characters based on the Character Identification Procedure Manual and the Character Inclusion Guideline, if the local government is told by the residents that "the use of the characters is absolutely not allowed," is there a legal basis to explain that "it is done by the national rule"? I think that it should be shown as the processing standard of the statutory entrusted business of Digital Agency, not as the technical advice of Ministry of Justice.

The fourth point is "How open should the character standardization be?" on page 17 of Document 3. Basically, I think it is necessary to make it open. It is important for character standardization on a national scale to be able to fully explain to residents that "characters are supposed to be handled in this way as a national policy."

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the Regarding the first point, it has not yet become a ministerial ordinance, but based on the Standardization Act, it is positioned to be identified as administrative work standard characters by FY 2025. It is also possible to retain external characters during the transitional period.

With regard to the second point, the ideal form of public relations is expected to be discussed by the public relations working team in the future. Some local governments are considering individual communication because only a small number of people change the letter shape, while others are conducting general public relations but not individual communication. On the other hand, I would like the public relations working team to consider what kind of public relations the national government should do so that local governments will not have difficulty in explaining to residents.

Regarding the third point, the family register is a statutory entrusted function, but the identification function is only a self-governing function, so it is limited to technical advice for laws and regulations. On the other hand, we have heard that local governments cannot give sufficient explanations to residents unless the central government's policies are clearly stated. We would like the public relations working team to discuss contents that can clearly convey the reason why the characters change and the purpose of the policy.

The fourth point is also considered to be included in the discussion of the public relations working team.

Member: Regarding the first point, I think it corresponds to 4 on page 13 of the material.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the That's right. Under the current regulations, the family register is a transitional measure that does not specify a time limit.

Member: Standardization Act will be extended depending on the circumstances of the local government, but shouldn't there be a deadline of "Please be sure to complete the identification regardless of the deadline of the Standardization Act?" I understand that it is a process of reporting to Digital Agency once for characters that could not be identified and then considering additional registration as administrative work standard characters as necessary. However, if I do not make it clear that "Please be sure to submit by this deadline," that process will occur every year forever.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the The deadline for identification is as you pointed out. Basically, we have informed people that the use of identification support tools should be completed by fiscal 2025, and that the identification itself should be completed by fiscal 2025.

However, with the revision of the basic policy by the Cabinet decision at the end of last year and the establishment of the Specified Transition Support System, the current situation is that it is quite difficult for some local governments to complete identification by fiscal 2025. In principle, we are working to complete identification by fiscal 2025.

Regarding the notification of characters that cannot be identified, according to the Character Identification Procedure Manual, the notification form is to be indicated in Digital Agency, but this has not yet been indicated. Therefore, we would like to inform the local governments as soon as possible. In addition, we would like you to notify the local governments after setting a certain deadline so that there will be no work every year or delay in the completion of identification into administrative work standard characters.

Member: This is a confirmation. As the deadline is FY 2025, is it correct to understand that the text requirements as one of the data requirements will be identified by the end of FY 2025 by preparing ministerial ordinances by then?

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the We have not decided on a definite policy at this point, but basically we think that is the direction we are heading.

Member: I think that it is not impossible for technical staff to decide the enforcement deadline of data requirements including character requirements earlier than the end of fiscal 2025. Is it correct to understand that they are planning to establish standards with the deadline of the end of fiscal 2025 in a ministerial ordinance?

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the has not been confirmed, but we are proceeding with the identification to be completed during FY 2025, which is our current understanding.

Member: Public Relations Working Team. It is my understanding that the characters in the family register will remain as "correct" in relation to the family register, and the administrative affairs standard characters will be treated as "correct" characters in relation to notifications and certifications of administrative affairs. Based on this understanding, various press articles have published relatively easy-to-understand character inclusion guidelines and identification examples. However, I remember that some cases that were somewhat difficult to understand were raised at past review meetings, and I am concerned that if we do not promote discussions by presenting various cases, local governments may not be able to provide sufficient explanations to residents. I feel that the national government needs to promote open discussions.

Furthermore, in universities, names written in Chinese characters are used on graduation certificates, etc., and this is a requirement for qualifications, so strict accuracy is required for characters, so it is necessary to ensure consistency with characters on family registers and residence certificates, and a considerable number of character sets are maintained and operated. I feel that universities are also greatly interested in this matter, and I think that there are other fields of interest. Is it correct to understand that opening up is a discussion that includes fields other than local governments?

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the Administrative Affairs The standard characters themselves are the characters in the local government system, but I think it is true that they are used in various places such as educational institutions and private companies such as financial institutions as a derivative, and I think it is necessary to communicate efforts to such stakeholders.

Member: Since this issue is related to a wide range of people, I think that what can be opened should be opened. On the other hand, what I was concerned about in the past review meeting was that I was taught that there are unique rules in the world of standardization technology, such as "if this is opened, it will be interrupted." I would like you to pay attention to the consistency of this.

Member: people because of the problem of identity and personal feelings. On the other hand, I also understand that in the future, as an administration, we must also value efficiency. As a local government, it is an advantage that administrative affairs become efficient by system standardization and character identification, but on the other hand, there are situations where inquiries such as complaints from some residents are expected, so I can imagine that we will be caught in the middle. Therefore, it is necessary for the national government to carefully create a system standardization mechanism.

As a basic confirmation, regarding "Publicity and publicity for the public" in 2 on page 13, it is said that "the font does not change, but the shape of the characters changes", which is a "difference in design", but the size, height and length of page 7 of the material can certainly be seen as such. There are various fonts among the characters that people usually see, and depending on the font, there are even patterns that look different from the same character, so if it is within the range of the "difference in design", I think there is little problem in standardizing it. If so, there are many cases in which administrative affairs can be carried out without taking the trouble to notify the subject of the change of the shape of the character. As a publicity, it may be enough to say, "We will unify the shape of characters in administrative affairs in the future". However, not all characters will be able to do so. It may be necessary to inform the subject of the characters that will change greatly, "We will change the shape of characters to improve the efficiency of administrative affairs", and if you change them without permission, you may receive inquiries from residents.

What I would like to ask is, in terms of numbers, how many kanji can't be identified? Or, in terms of percentages, are there only a few?

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the Document 3. This figure shows the character development project in Ministry of Justice. The character development project was launched when Ministry of Justice tried to develop a duplicate family register data management system in the wake of the Great East Japan Earthquake, which damaged the family register system. First, we collected the characters implemented in the family register system of the local government. There were about 1.63 million characters. After detailed examination of the contents, some of them were substantially duplicated. When these duplicates were removed, the number was reduced to about 700,000 characters. We tried to identify those 700,000 characters into the "character information base" maintained by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which consists of about 60000 characters. As a result, we were able to identify about 550,000 characters in the character information base, but could not identify the remaining about 150,000 characters. The problem was what to do with these about 150,000 characters. Ministry of Justice decided to group about 150,000 characters by the formation of characters, etc., to make about 50000 characters, and then register all of them.

There were about 60000 characters and about 50000 characters, a total of about 110,000 characters. However, when the characters used in the family register were checked with about 50000 characters, about 40000 characters were not actually used. Although they were not used in the family register, old Chinese characters were registered as character sets based on the judgment of the vendor, who said, "This character may be used." As a result, 70000 characters, including about 60000 characters of the character information base and about 10,000 characters that could not be identified as the character information base and were actually used in the family register, were selected as the administrative affairs standard characters. Therefore, the characters used in the family register are within the range of design differences that can be identified as the administrative affairs standard characters.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the about their past efforts to computerize family registers, we found that there were differences depending on the local government. The sense of scale of the characters that could not be identified also differed depending on the local government. In addition to the size of the local government, in local governments that followed the local government's policy at the time of computerization to identify characters did not have such a large impact, and in other local governments, I have the impression that there will be a certain number of people whose characters will change in the future.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the family register should be identifiable as administrative standard characters. Among the 20 inclusion criteria, all local governments consider that if they are large, small, long and short, they can be considered as design differences, but there are some that cannot be considered as design differences. A common example is the three lines on the right side of the letters "cedar" and "shape". Even if the slopes of the three lines are only in the opposite direction at the bottom, they are considered as design differences according to the character inclusion guidelines. Some local governments say, "The character inclusion guidelines say that it is a design difference and can be identified, but it seems to be clearly different." In addition, the same point can be made by residents. In other words, it is important for local governments and residents to widely understand the character inclusion guidelines.

Member: I would like to make a statement because a very important matter has come up. Letters and characters are used separately in materials, but they are listed in a table called the list of Kanji for common use, which is indicated in a cabinet notice and cabinet directive issued by Cultural Affairs Agency. Characters are abstract character shapes and concepts, and are often described as the framework of characters. On the other hand, characters are forms in which there is such a difference in reality, for example, whether the character "tree" bounces or not, but in this case, it is only a difference in design and the characters are the same. Cultural Affairs Agency has indicated the distinction between characters and characters as a national language policy and kanji policy.

However, in local governments, for example, the Basic Resident Register is mainly due to the digitization of handwritten family registers, but it seems that differences in the form of letters at the design level have been recorded on resident records, etc., and there are many things that seem to be only differences in the form of letters, and it seems to be one of the reasons why residents are aware that' this letter is our letter.'

However, Cultural Affairs Agency, based on the idea that characters have a social existence and are useful tools, divides characters and forms according to the above-mentioned criteria. However, there is some concern about whether this consensus has been reached throughout the country, even when looking at elementary schools, etc. If you look closely at the list of Kanji for common use, there is a phrase that can be read as not directly applying to proper nouns. For example, there is a character called Yoshi by yoshida. There are people who strongly insist on the distinction as a noticeable difference in the length of the upper part. This is only a difference in form according to the list of Kanji for common use, that is, a difference in design. However, many Kanwa dictionaries say that this is a vulgar character and the font is different. As a person concerned and as an ordinary citizen, I feel that the concept of characters and forms has not spread sufficiently.

I think that this conference will be the culmination of the e-government business, which deals with text, and I am thinking about how we can overcome this problem of consensus and identity. I would like to hear various things from you.

Member: I would like to make three points.
The first point is on the operational side. At present, local governments are very helpful by issuing character identification order books and character subsumption guidelines. In the past, the work process of character identification was something like a visual craftsmanship of local government officials. If certain criteria and guidelines are issued, it will be easier to identify a single candidate, and the efficiency of character identification work will be considerably improved.

The second point is the same opinion as other members. The schedule for character identification should be clarified. I think it is necessary to show the deadline in this meeting. There are many local governments that are carefully planning the schedule for the transition to standard compliance system. If character standardization is also added to this, not only local governments but also vendors must be considered. I think there are principles and exceptions, but I would like to proceed so that local governments that are ahead will not lose money. It would also be good if the prospect of future subsidies from the national government for character identification work becomes clear. It is a point that every local government would like to confirm.

The third point is about public relations. Until now, technical terms have been used in the guidelines for including characters and the procedure manual for identifying characters as materials for the government officials. It is recommended that easy-to-understand words be used in the materials for officials to explain to residents. The materials can be divided into elementary, intermediate, and advanced levels. There is a problem of how much it can be known to residents, but I hope that the standardization of characters will promote public relations while showing the purpose of "leading to improved services for residents and efficient administration" in the future.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the local government. It is also important to consider what media and how to use for public relations to the people, and we would like the public relations working team to discuss materials for studying among local government employees.

Member: Secretariat. Is the family register of non-conformity included in Document 3, page 5?

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the is not included. I told you earlier that the characters in the family register should be identified as administrative standard characters, but the characters in the non-reformatted family register are the last remaining characters that cannot be identified.

Member: During the discussion so far, whether we are talking about character identification in these five pages or whether we are talking about non-conforming family registers that do not appear in those five pages will change whether it is at the level of a design difference or not. I think that this will be discussed in the future, especially by the expert working team, but it is better to distinguish between them. In addition, regarding transitional measures, I think that the transitional measures for characters themselves are transitional measures that can be used even if it is not a specific transition support system. Including such points, today's discussion is oral, so I would like the secretariat to prepare in such a way that all members can see the same thing and discuss with the same recognition, starting from clarifying the current situation by showing materials and sentences, and we would like to cooperate.

Member: characters is really troublesome, and I also understand the situation on the ground well. I would like to say again while fully aware that it is difficult to organize them neatly.

Rules must be made easy to understand. Very complicated rules are difficult to understand even by the public. In most cases, city, ward, town and village government officials explain to residents, but they may have difficulty understanding and may not be able to explain correctly.

It is understandable that the characters of the name on the family register have the "attachment" of the residents, but that is why it is important to be able to show the grounds when explaining the change of characters to residents at the family register counter of the municipality. In addition, administrative affairs must be executed efficiently. I am concerned that work and expenses will increase in response to various environments and issues surrounding characters. What should be done to make it more efficient? In all administrative affairs, in order to identify the people, for example, even in private companies such as medical institutions and financial institutions, the characters of the name have become a very big factor, and there should be no difference in handling. In other words, the standard number of characters for administrative affairs of about 70000 characters is beyond the number that can be understood and distinguished by humans. In that case, I think that it is also necessary to devise ways to consolidate the number of characters to the extent that humans can actually understand and use them. The number of character types that can be used on smartphones, including general personal computers, is about 10,000 characters. If it becomes possible to use office work among them, it should be possible to display the characters in the same form including private companies such as medical institutions and financial institutions. I think that it could be a direction to aim at that.

In the case of family registers, there are family registers that do not conform to reformatting. These are family registers that are left as paper family registers because they contain characters that cannot be digitized. According to a previous study group, the number of family registers that do not conform to reformatting has decreased to about 10,000 nationwide. The total number of family registers has decreased from about 50 million to about 60 million, and I feel that this is also an indication that the understanding of residents has changed in response to changes in the world.

Digital Agency is emphasizing the fact that simple procedures can be completed on a smartphone, that applications can be completed online, and that they can be completed in 30 seconds, but in order to make this possible, it is necessary to reconsider this issue of the family register. It is okay to have a broad discussion again after indicating the future direction, destination, and deadline. If there is room for discussion in this expert meeting, I would appreciate it if we could discuss it again. I would like to say again that I would like you to consider organizing the whole in order for municipal officials to be able to explain properly to residents. If there are about 10,000 family registers that are not subject to revision, I think it would be good to examine whether or not the resident records of the people on the family register are computerized, and if so, what is the basis for it. It may also be good to investigate how many people are in the family register that is covered by JIS X 0213 in total. I do not intend to correct a difficult question, but I would like to receive comments from the secretariat.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the How far we can advance the discussion is a challenge, and I agree with what you pointed out. On the other hand, there is a difficult history of unifying and standardizing characters, so how to finally integrate them into about 70000 characters is a major challenge for the time being. While there is a big future direction, we must first solve the immediate challenges. I would like to have discussions on that first, and if possible, I would like to have discussions on the big direction.

Member: local government has been struggling with the character problem for a long time, and I strongly hope that this discussion will put an end to the character problem.

Regarding the issue of unification to JIS X 0213 that was mentioned earlier, I personally think that it is fine as it is, but I feel that it is difficult to realize it at this stage. Looking at the situation at universities, we have no choice but to have two copies of the name characters for official documents and for display on smartphones, etc., and I think that this is the reality in Japan. Even if we have to have two copies, I would like to tell you that I am attending this Expert Meeting with gratitude if discussions on characters are stopped on the premise of that.

Member: This time, in addition to public relations, I think it is important to proceed while carefully confirming how it will be received by the people, the people concerned, the local government, and vendors.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the First of all, I would like to tell you the fact that there was a plan to unify the character requirements with JIS X 0213 when we started considering them. However, when we asked local governments and various related parties for their opinions, the majority of them said that they were not at that stage yet. Since then, we have advanced this discussion by drawing a certain degree of ideal while requiring gradual steps. That step is the administrative affairs standard characters this time. The 70000 characters are a little too many, but on the other hand, if there are 70000 characters, it will be within the category of design differences regarding the family register, and we can take into consideration personal identity. First of all, I think we have overcome one mountain with this. Still, some people may point out that the characters will change. I would like the public relations working team to think of something that can overcome the next mountain and move up the steps. If the people of Japan are satisfied, I think we can create a path to unification to JIS X 0213 next. However, the current situation is that the people of Japan do not fully recognize the administrative affairs standard characters. For example, I think it would be good if we could create a new path when the fruit of the persimmon tree ripens and drops off. I hope you will gather your wisdom and think together.

Member: Forgive me for repeating myself, but I think that the majority of the problem with the letters is basically a problem with the name. The name is used in various places such as the Basic Resident Register, which is a self-governing function, but it is quoted from the family register, which is a statutory entrusted function. Therefore, isn't it possible to issue a processing standard such as "the name should follow the inclusion standard" as a statutory entrusted function of the family register?

Regarding the difference in design in the subsumption criteria, I think that it is not appropriate to allow each local government to handle it as a different character because of the request of the residents. It is possible that a parent and child with the same surname are in the family register of another local government. For example, if A City standardizes the character of cedar according to the subsumption criteria, but B City recognizes it as a different character, A City will have no choice but to relax the criteria following B City. Therefore, unless it is clearly stated in the form of a national rule that this is a processing standard to be followed, the standards will be relaxed one after another without compliance.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the family register, there is a difference in the transitional period, and since the work related to the identification of characters is a self-governing affair, it is difficult to formulate a processing standard on this point in laws and regulations.

On the other hand, it must be avoided that the identification results are different for each local government and information cannot be coordinated. Although it is technical advice, we would like to continue to consider support methods so that it can be promoted from the perspective of improving the efficiency of local government affairs, including the perspective of improving information coordination and residents' convenience, in accordance with the Guidelines for Including Characters.

Member: In the first member's question, there was a question whether it was mandatory. Since what is stipulated in the ministerial ordinance based on the Standardization Act will be mandatory, to be precise, since there is no ministerial ordinance at present, the content of the obligation has not been decided. On the other hand, since the standard specifications are open to the public, local governments probably assume that many parts of the identification process will be made into ministerial ordinances. On that basis, the identification process itself will probably not be made mandatory. The identification method itself is technical advice, but if it is made mandatory that the identification result is this character, there will be about 70000 characters in the standardization method indicated by the national government, and it will be a matter of which one to choose from among them. The problem is that since there are transitional measures in the current standard specifications, whether to use the transitional measures will truly be a decision for each local government. I think there are various opinions among local governments, so we should listen carefully. The first opinion of local governments is that the national government will clearly present its policy and the local government will explain it to the residents based on it. If we respect that opinion, it is possible to eliminate the scope of discretion of local governments in the ministerial ordinance to be prepared in the future. The second opinion is that the sense of distance between each local government and the residents differs, so the room for discretion of local governments should be left. If they try to leave such room for discretion of local governments, it may be written in a way that shows the principle as a standardization in the ministerial ordinance but leaves the range of discretion of local governments.

In particular, through these expert meetings and working teams, I think it is necessary to listen to the ideas of municipalities, which are basic local governments, as they are directly in charge of resident administration, and create something that everyone can understand.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the , will be the administrative standard characters. As you pointed out, the process of identification, "This character is identified as A," and the inclusion criteria themselves are technical advice. For example, it is inevitable to allow the identification of a foreign character into a different administrative standard character, such as A in one municipality and B in another municipality. We are not considering making this inclusion criteria itself a ministerial ordinance.

Member: 's non-conforming family registers are also important, Ministry of Justice is making efforts to reduce the number of non-conforming family registers. Also, to talk frankly about the contents of JIS X 0213, a committee established in Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry more than 20 years ago set an upper limit on the number of characters from the beginning, and established the third and fourth levels within that limit. For surnames and first names, the NTT telephone directory was provided at the time, and the committee used it as a reference material to pick up characters. As a result, the number of non-Japanese characters decreased, but it did not mean that all the characters of surnames were supplemented at all. In the first place, the number of people who were not listed in the NTT telephone directory was large in terms of the population. Quite strict selection criteria were established for first names, so they were not adopted, and the reality is that more characters were missed. There are also JIS subsumption standards, which are generally looser than those established in Digital Agency and Ministry of Justice, and various characters are contained in one code point. It was also known during the work that the NTT telephone directory itself had created and operated a rather loose subsumption standard. Therefore, although efforts were made to include many proper nouns in the characters included in JIS X 0213, it was based on its own subsumption standards and samples rather than a complete survey in the first place, so I think it depends on how far you can live up to your expectations.

Member: If there are no other opinions, I would like to conclude the meeting.

Secretariat: If you have any opinions other than those we received today, including those on the operation of the character requirements, please contact the secretariat by Tuesday, January 21.

The second meeting of the Advisory Council will be held on Monday, March 24 at 3 p.m.

Greater than or