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 ".

Advisory Council on the Standardization of Characters in Local Government Information Systems (2nd)

Overview

Date and

Monday, March 24, 2025, from 15:00 to 17:00

US>

Sabo Hall and online conference

Agenda

  • 1. Opening
  • 2. Agenda
    • 1. Matters reported by each working team
    • 2. Survey on the status of each local government related to character requirements and character identification
    • 3. Exchange of Views
  • 3) Closing

Material

Relevant policy

Summary of the Proceedings

Date and

March 24, 2025 (Monday) 15:00 to 17:00

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) * Absent
  • 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. Matters reported by each working team
  2. Survey of Local Governments on Character Requirements and Character Identification
  3. Exchange of views

Handouts

  • Appendix 1: Reports from Working Teams
  • Document 2: Survey on the status of each local government concerning character requirements and character identification
  • Appendix 3: Outline of the Advisory Council on Character Standardization in Local Government Information Systems
  • Material 4: Establishment and Operation of Public Relations Working Team, Specialized Working Team, and Character Identification Working Team
  • Attached draft of PR materials
  • Documents submitted by members Situation of character identification in Kobe City and opinions of the Residents Division

Agenda

  • At the second meeting of the Working Group, the secretariat and members of each working team explained the matters to be reported.
  • The secretariat explained "Survey on the status of each local government concerning character requirements and character identification", and the members explained "Status of character identification in Kobe City and opinions of the Residents Division".

Interpellation

Members: This time, specific information such as examples of the character "fuji" was presented in the materials provided by the members, which was very easy to understand.

You explained about registration data, and I think that what can be understood by Document 2, the survey to understand the situation of local governments, is the purpose of identifying characters from the viewpoint of how local governments can improve the efficiency of administrative affairs in the resident record system. Registration is a matter under the jurisdiction of the national government, but I was concerned about how the characters for names and names (of corporations, etc.) used in the tax field are handled. Taxes include national taxes and residential taxes, and local taxes are also related to improving the efficiency of administrative affairs of local governments, so I would like to ask how the handling of tax-related characters will be organized.

For those residents whose names will be changed, the question of how their names will be changed is a matter of great interest. It is natural that there will be opposition to the change of the characters of their names. The important point is that the characters of their names on the family register will not be changed. In the standardization of characters, they are somewhat special characters in design, and even if they have strong feelings about them, they will be identified in a form that is easier to process in order to improve the efficiency of administrative affairs. It is important to publicize to the people that "the characters on the family register will not change. However, the use of standard characters for administrative affairs is to improve the efficiency of administrative affairs." Therefore, I feel that it is enough to properly convey to the people that "the characters of your real name will not change." I also want to confirm once again that "the characters on the family register will not change."

Secretariat: Regarding the first question, the tax field was discussed in the expert working group and is described on page 11 of Document 1. We received an opinion that since taxes, including fixed asset tax and corporate tax, affect local governments, we would like them to consider it in coordination with local governments. We will also consider the impact on national taxes separately.

Regarding the second question, members of the public relations working team also expressed their opinions. In the third point of the summary of opinions on page 4 of the materials, there was an opinion that "Please clearly convey the message that there will be no change to the family register." Therefore, this opinion is reflected in the leaflet of the attached draft of public relations materials.

Members: Supplementary Family Register?

Secretariat: Family Register and Supplementary Family Register systems.

Members: I would like to ask a question related to national and local taxes. On page 3 of the survey in Document 2, "How to manage characters" is listed as Basic Resident Register, National Pension, Election, National Health Insurance, Child Allowance, School Attendance, Family Register and Seal Impression. Residence tax is not written separately, but is this included somewhere?

Secretariat: local taxes, to be specific, residence tax, fixed property tax, etc., they are listed as a list of applicable business systems on the bottom line on the back of the attached PR material leaflet. It is stated that the target of standardization of local government systems this time includes office work such as residence tax and fixed property tax.

The main point of your question is that while the character standard will be unified for local taxes, what about national taxes, national pension and welfare pensions, etc., which are under the jurisdiction of National Tax Agency? The character standard unification this time is based on the "Act on Standardization of Local Public Entity Information Systems", and the first target is to unify the character standard within standardization of local government systems.

On the other hand, the national government has not yet issued a clear policy on its jurisdiction affairs such as national tax and employees' pension.

Therefore, it means that the unification of the character standard is underway in standardization of local government systems at present.

Members: In the registration discussion earlier, you mentioned that "fixed asset tax is related," but I understand that this initiative does not include the administrative work of the national government and is proceeding within the scope of administrative work under the jurisdiction of local governments.

Members: local government is settled, there is a possibility that residents will have questions if characters different from those of the local government are used in notices from the national government, etc., and I felt that this is a very important theme.

I understood that the expression "for the time being" in the part that "the characters on the family register will not change for the time being" means "there are transitional measures." It may be accurate for the administration to use "for the time being," but "for the time being" is likely to be a considerably long period. I felt that it would be good to strengthen the nuance that "for the time being" will not change for a while.

Members: Public Relations Working Group, it was pointed out that "it should be easy to understand for local government officials," and this is a very important viewpoint. I myself have experience in the department in charge of the Basic Resident Register, and I can understand it well from the viewpoint of the field. In the past, many local government officials had 20 or 30 years of experience in one department, but now it is difficult to engage in only specific clerical work due to short-term personnel changes, and the number of officials who can stay in one section for a long time is on the decline. Therefore, it is becoming difficult to maintain and pass on know-how depending on the knowledge of specific officials, and easy-to-understand materials for newly assigned officials are becoming more important.

From my own experience, I feel that the "Views of the Resident Division" on page 3 of the materials provided by the members are very relevant. The computerization of the family register and the computerization of the Basic Resident Register are not necessarily linked and have been carried out separately at different times. In addition, since there are many residents whose registered domicile and place of residence are different, the family register and the resident register have not been sufficiently linked, and it should be noted again that they are not necessarily at the same level.

Furthermore, around the 1955 s, before the computerization of family registers, Japanese typewriters were widely used to print handwritten family registers. In some cases, characters were replaced in the process, so if you go back to the old handwritten family registers, they may not actually match the characters used today.

In this way, there is a possibility that the "fluctuation" of the past characters will become more apparent as the computer collation advances in the future. I think that this point should be fully considered in the future measures.

Page 5 of Appendix 2 shows the "average number of non-Japanese characters in resident registration systems." This shows that there are more non-Japanese characters in government-designated cities and fewer in towns and villages. Since the number of registered residents varies greatly, it is also necessary to consider the meaning of the "national average of 2,207 characters." Page 8 shows the mapping of the "character identification completion rate" by prefecture. While there are many prefectures where the rate is 0%, there are prefectures where the rate is as high as 40%. These regional differences may not be mere variations, so I think it is worth digging down and sorting out what they mean. In particular, looking at the "rate of coordination with vendors regarding character identification" on page 9, the response status varies considerably by region, and I would like to confirm whether it is worthwhile to dig down into the underlying factors.

Members: Regarding the dispersion of the survey results, I personally think that the large difference between prefectures is partly due to the difference in the response of vendors, but I would like to ask if there is any analysis or consideration on the secretariat side.

Secretariat: Regarding the first material for local government employees, we would like to proceed while taking into consideration that it is difficult to pass on know-how due to personnel changes, etc., and creating it according to the degree of understanding.

Regarding the second proposal on page 3 of the document provided by the members, I think that Proposal 1 would be Proposal 2 because it would go back to the discussions that have been advanced in the Study Group and the Expert Panel. However, as this point is described in Document 1 as a matter for continued consideration by the Expert Working Team, we would like to proceed with a close examination of the impact of the difference in font between the family register and the copy of the residence certificate on the individual and related ministries and agencies in cooperation with related ministries and agencies in the future.

Regarding the third survey result, when multiple local governments were interviewed, the criteria for the extent to which responses were regarded as having been adjusted differed, which was one of the factors that caused the survey results to differ depending on the prefecture. The method of feedback of the results of the survey and analysis by prefecture is currently being considered.

Secretariat: When I explain my opinion on the word "Fuji" on page 3, the local governments I interviewed about public relations regard it as an issue that has a major impact.

If all of the Fuji characters were to be treated as gaiji, there would be about 700,000 characters used in the family register, which is the population base, and we would be inclined to increase a considerable number of gaiji. There is a risk that this would not be consistent with the direction of unifying administrative affairs standard characters. In addition, there is a possibility that it will lead to the expansion of the argument that "if this character is recognized, then that character will also be recognized", which is a very troubling issue.

On the other hand, as stated in the materials provided by the members, the opinion based on the actual situation of local governments on the ground that "Since it has been treated separately in the family register so far, if we do not take measures in a certain way, trouble may occur with residents" is also valuable. A clue to the solution cannot be seen unless the actual situation in the local government is clarified regarding the treatment of the character "fuji" in the family register and the number of cases. It cannot be resolved simply by arguing that "It can be identified or cannot be identified because the design is the same." We will coordinate with Ministry of Justice based on the opinions raised by local governments.

Members: Regarding public relations, it is certainly important to publicize the policy of "standardizing characters in administrative affairs and procedures." However, citizens do not live only in the world of administrative affairs. In ordinary social life, for example, there are many situations in which names are used in various private procedures such as financial institutions.

In response to the question, "Is it okay if the handling of names in administrative affairs and the private sector is different?", I think, "It is healthy if they are the same." In an age where the characters used in the names of citizens are exchanged through information processing systems and the Internet, we must consider expanding the discussion somewhere.

Document 2 There may have been differences in the perceptions and views of the local governments when they responded to the survey. I think this is true. First of all, it is meaningful to compile this as a document to know the actual situation where such differences occur. However, it is another matter whether the survey results with different perceptions are good or not. It is desirable to "organize the responses after unifying the response criteria". I hope it will be organized in the future consideration.

Regarding the materials provided by the members, I think that the idea of Proposal 1 is natural as a clear standard and a way of thinking based on the law. On the other hand, I think that the proposal that the rule should be clarified in Proposal 2 is also true.

Secretariat: , it is a problem how to promote as a policy that the adoption of administrative affairs standard characters by local governments will spread to the private sector. Although there was a discussion at the first expert meeting, there was a discussion on whether "administrative affairs standard characters" are good as the character standard to be unified in the long term in the first place. It was pointed out that the number of characters should be reduced because there are still too many administrative affairs standard characters to enable centralized administrative processing in computers and various fields such as smartphones. Administrative affairs standard characters are considered to be a big mountain in one character standard unification at this point, but how to organize other fields and long-term character standard unification after climbing this mountain firmly is a challenge. In doing so, it is recognized as a challenge that it is necessary to fully consider the actual situation of private administrative affairs and user convenience.

Secretariat: The following is a supplementary explanation of "relations with the private sector" in particular.

For example, school age books are currently included in the 20 services subject to standardization, but related school information systems in the field of school affairs are not included. Some people say they "want to use" as a need, but we recognize that there are still many difficult technical issues to make the current administrative work standard characters available outside the administration, such as the private sector. However, we also think that we should not rule out the possibility of expanding it to the private sector if the environment is established in the process of discussing the international standardization of administrative work standard characters.

On the other hand, characters created on the basis of textual information have already been internationally standardized by the ISO and can be freely downloaded by the general public. However, at present, it cannot be said that a usage environment for inputting about 60000 characters has been established, and the reality is that "simply distributing characters to the general public does not allow them to be used."

Recently, it was in the news that the IPAmj Mincho font was included as standard in ChromeOS, but if the resources necessary for international standardization are provided to the world, the usage environment will gradually be established, so I think it is necessary to consider it comprehensively while watching such needs.

It is technically possible to use standard characters for administrative work on smartphones and other computers, but simply making them available may cause confusion. We would greatly appreciate your continued discussion.

Members: I felt that what you have just explained should be included in the so-called high-level discussions that will follow the discussions currently underway, such as "deployment not only within the government but also in the private sector," "how to use it in the private sector," and "issues for international standardization."

Members: The kanji for "Fuji," which was cited as a specific example, was the second most commonly used character in Japanese family names after "Ta." There are also many characters and strokes, and it is thought that there are various opinions about the form of the character.

A few years ago, there was a case in which a local government digitized a resident register or a family register, and mistakenly standardized "Fuji" of "So" type and "Hachi (Ha)" type to "Hachi" type, and was forced to deal with it. There are such cases. The character "Fuji" is one of the characters that need to be handled carefully in the future.

The documents provided by the members are very carefully processed, and regarding the character' Fuji,' it is said that the points of identification are whether the grass crown is distant, whether the part in the moon is a slanting boat moon, and what the so-and-hachi parts are. Looking at the family register unified characters, etc., it can be seen that not all combinations of these three points are accepted.

This time, the documents provided by the members reveal that the city's documents, which are not in the family register standardized characters or the administrative office standard characters, are computerized in the family register, even if it is like an ordinary month instead of Funatsuki and is open like 8. I think this is one point of future thinking. The handling of such characters, which are already computerized in the family register but are not in the family register standardized characters or the administrative office standard characters, must be discussed in the future.

In other words, while the government explains that' the characters on the family register do not change,' there are actually a certain number of residents who are registered in the family register with special characters and forms. However, it is necessary to discuss based on statistical data as a basis because an argument without a basis of figures is not persuasive because the range of effects is not known.

The character for "fuji" was adopted as a Chinese character for everyday use in 2010, and as a policy for the use of Chinese characters and the Japanese language in Cultural Affairs Agency and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, it has become a Cabinet-issued notice and directive, and since it also concerns all government ministries and agencies, it has the nature of not being so mandatory for proper nouns.

In the guidelines, etc. concerning the character styles and forms of the list of Kanji for common use, it can also be read as indicating that' making the so (left-hand character) look like an eight (right-hand character) is not a difference in design' for wisteria, and therefore, among the characters registered in the family register listed in the materials provided by the members, there may be characters that must be recognized as being in the old form when they are asserted to be in the old form. In short, when the employer asserts that' it is not a difference in design but a difference in character style' and the case goes to court, etc., it is considered to be a very complicated issue.

These problems of characters are inherent in the mechanism of Chinese characters themselves, and it is always a matter of concern. In order to ensure that there is no variation in handling across the country, it is necessary to consider measures at least in this expert meeting. It is also necessary to discuss which working group will consider it, but I would like to ask you to raise the issue first and think about it.

Members: He emphasized the need for discussions to be based on the basis of figures. He also pointed out that it is necessary to ensure that there is no variation in the handling across the country. I would like to ask the secretariat to comment on this point.

Secretariat: characters are one of the important materials when considering it. However, since Digital Agency does not have any data, we would like to ask for the cooperation of Ministry of Justice by all means. We would like you to share what kind of characters and how many there are in the family register. We will set up a working team to identify characters, and the issue of non-conforming family registers will be the first topic of discussion, but the Character Identification Procedure Manual states that the word "not non-conforming family registers but difficult to identify" will also be considered in the future. If there are no standards, "I want to use those and these characters as foreign characters," and the basis of the policy of creating and unifying character standards for administrative affairs will collapse. We must think carefully so that such a thing does not happen.

Members: Regarding the issue of "Fuji," the Public Relations Working Team discussed the figures provided by local governments located in the east and west, respectively, but if we estimate from the figures, there are tens of thousands of people nationwide. Since there are probably no other cases like this, I think it is okay to treat it differently. Local governments should consider discussing only "Fuji" at an early stage in the newly established Character Identification Working Team, because the method of public relations will change once the number of target people reaches a certain number.

In addition, the progress rate of the identification work in the status survey described in Attachment 2 seems to vary not only by prefecture but also within prefectures. Even in Kyoto Prefecture, where prefectures are in the process of coordinating between municipalities and vendors, responses may differ even among municipalities that are actually working in the same way. Since there is a possibility that the actual situation can be grasped more accurately if the survey is conducted through vendor interviews and briefing sessions, the survey method should be considered flexibly.

Members: Two opinions were received. It is a proposal that discussions should be held at an early stage because "fuji" has many influences and is likely to be a special character. The second is a proposal to hold a hearing and briefing session on the progress rate because it is better to collect information from vendors and verify and analyze it.

Secretariat: Regarding the first point, we would like to ask Ministry of Justice to cooperate with the fact-finding survey. As pointed out, it is clear from the opinions of each local government that the area of impact is wide, so we would like to hold discussions as soon as possible.

Regarding the second point, it is quite possible that the intention of the question was not fully understood when the local government responded to the questionnaire. We would like to share it with vendors, etc. and take measures to grasp the actual situation. It may be pointed out from a different perspective from the local government.

Members: From today's various materials, I assume that there have been various discussions between the public relations working team and the specialized working team. Thank you for your response.

First, regarding public relations, each local government will fully shift to a standardized system in FY 2025, and the administrative work standard characters will be used and seen by residents. Therefore, I would like you to indicate when public relations materials will be provided. Since various issues will emerge after the first set of public relations materials is distributed to local governments, it is desirable to be able to improve and update the issues each time.

Second, regarding the difference in characters between the copy of the residence certificate and the family register, in the affairs of local governments, for example, when a resident moved in, if there were no characters in the resident register system, they were sometimes registered with simplified characters that existed in the resident register system, not with characters in the family register. I think that the same treatment was probably used in the affairs of local governments across the country. When a resident moves in, if the characters are published in the certificate of moving out, the simplified characters will be used in the new place. In such cases, please tell us whether the characters in the copy of the residence certificate will be identified as the standard characters for administrative affairs in the process of identifying the characters in the standard characters for administrative affairs, or whether "the characters in the family register and the copy of the residence certificate will be the same and identified as the standard characters for administrative affairs."

Third, I think there is an argument that the idea of Proposal 2 on page 3 of the materials provided by the members may be a certain disadvantage for those who fall under it. In such a case, I would like to see some kind of evidence presented.

Secretariat: Regarding the first point, we are considering posting QR codes of the Digital Agency website on public relations materials. The website is currently in production, and public relations materials will be available after completion. We would like to be able to provide it to local governments as soon as possible.

Regarding the second point, the difference in characters between the family register and the copy of the residence certificate. I would like to share with the relevant ministries and agencies that there is a need to fully discuss whether it is a difference in design in character identification, whether the font will also change, and what kind of impact it will have if it replaces such parts. On the other hand, I recognize that it is important to discuss after thoroughly investigating the scope of impact.

The third point is probably described in the materials provided by the members after understanding the actual situation, but there is a limit because it is a matter of self-government. Therefore, I am very grateful that I presented it in the form of technical advice at the first meeting of the Advisory Panel. On the other hand, as the opinion of the local government, I think that you proposed again today that "it will be a problem if it is not decided by the central government." We cannot reach a conclusion yet whether to use Proposal 1 or Proposal 2 while we are trying to figure out what kind of method is better, but if we do it with Proposal 2, I think we must fully consider what kind of method is available.

Members: First of all, I would like to supplement a little about the current situation on page 3 of the materials provided by the members.

In the Japanese legal system, it is a major premise that the name of a Japanese person is determined by the family register, and since the name is used for various administrative affairs, the name on the family register is written on a copy of the resident register, resident tax, national pension, etc. Therefore, there is talk of using the same name as the family register as a matter of course, and the discussion so far has indicated that "the same name" means "the same font" as the interpretation of the Basic Resident Register Law. In other words, the interpretation so far has been that "the same name" is the same character even if the character shape is different, and we have not particularly grasped that this caused a problem. In the practice of each local government, if there is a problem with the different character shape, it may be that the character shape is matched. The character shape will be changed by identifying the character with the standardization this time. Since the font does not change even if the character shape changes, this is within the scope of the Basic Resident Register. It seems that there is room for discussion whether the character shape of "Fuji" is a difference in the character shape or the font. I think that it depends on the result of the discussion, but if it is judged to be a difference in the character shape, "it is okay if the character shape is different between the family register and the resident register" as before.

In the materials provided by the members, Draft 1 allows the creation of gaiji, and therefore allows the creation of gaiji for family registers without a transitional period. Based on the current standard specifications, if you want to keep characters that are not in the standard characters for administrative affairs in external characters, it is possible in the family register, but in the resident register, there is a transitional measure but there is a certain time limit, so you will have to make it the standard characters for administrative affairs eventually. For the time being, there is room for the creation of non-Japanese characters for both family registers and resident registers, so I think there is at least a five year grace period. Regarding Proposal 2, since it is not necessary to match the characters if they are different in shape, they may or may not be matched. As for what to do if the font is different, I think it is clear that the story of the non-conforming family register on page 4 of the materials provided by the members is probably a difference in font. As for whether it is okay to change the font when the font is different, the interpretation so far has been to match the font. The important thing is to discuss thoroughly with digitalization whether it is an argument that "It is OK to use different characters in the family register and resident register because it has been confirmed that residents will not be troubled," or whether it is an argument that "It has an impact, but it is something that must be done for Digital Agency, so we will explain it well to the residents and do it after obtaining their consent." If it is okay to use different fonts, I personally think that a certain amount of legal basis is necessary at this point. According to the current standard specifications, the characters in the family register can be the conventional characters, but the system also has the characters of the administrative work standard characters, and the administrative work standard characters are linked between systems. If this is done, the characters in the family register will be the standard characters for administrative affairs when they are linked, so the Juki who received it will be the standard characters for administrative affairs. If this is written in a ministerial ordinance to be established in the future, this part will be mandatory. Therefore, if this kind of thing is done in the larger context of digitalization and standardization, "There will be parts where the font changes between the family register and the resident register. However, it is limited to family registers that are not revised. " It is not that there is no room to revise the current standard specification from the current version 4.1 in the future, and the ministerial ordinance will be made in the future. To this end, the government will seek coordination among relevant ministries and agencies on how and by when to draw up the ministerial ordinance, based on discussions at the expert panel.

This time, I have a question about page 16 of Material 2: Survey on the Status of Administrative Affairs. It says that 27% of the population will be transferred to administrative affairs standard characters by the end of FY 2025, which I think is very small. It is probably because only local governments that do not use transitional measures are counted. Local governments that use transitional measures also answered that they will identify characters in this material, so it seems that they "identify characters but leave external characters as transitional measures". It is a question as a country whether this is treated as "organizations that use transitional measures have not been able to transfer to administrative affairs standard characters" or as "organizations that have transferred to administrative affairs standard characters, but some external characters remain using transitional measures". In this material, it says that transitional measures are used but character identification is performed, so it seems that by definition, the transition to administrative affairs standard characters will be made even if there are transitional measures. There is room for consideration in the way of expression in this material.

According to the data, there are not many local governments that have already completed character identification, but there are some. On page 7, 78 organizations answered "completed" that they had completed character identification and did not use transitional measures. I wonder if all of these 78 organizations were able to identify the characters, or if they changed the font to the administrative office standard character. In that case, what kind of organization is it?

There are three options. The first is to match the characters in the family register that does not conform to the revised standard with the characters in the resident register, at least for the time being. The second is to make the resident register the standard characters for administrative affairs. The third is to take this opportunity to explain to the person concerned and to make those who did not conform to the revised standard characters for administrative affairs. Even in Ministry of Justice, efforts have been made to eliminate the family register that does not conform to the revised standard, and you said in the previous working session that you would continue the work in the future. Since it is the most ideal that the characters in the family register that does not conform to the revised standard become the standard characters for administrative affairs, it is desirable that it can be realized through cooperation among the relevant ministries and agencies.

Members: The first point is on page 16 of Document 2, and it is true that 27% of the population displays the characters in the copy of the residence certificate in the standard characters for administrative affairs, which may be a question for some people. The second point is that the character identification on page 7 has been completed, and what about the details of the 78 local governments that do not apply the transitional measures? The third point is that there may be an option to use the characters in the non-reformatted family register as the standard characters for administrative affairs after giving an explanation and obtaining consent. I would like to ask for comments from the secretariat.

Secretariat: Regarding the first point, it is stated on page 16 as "the percentage of the population that the transition to the administrative office standard characters is scheduled to be made by the end of FY 2025," but what I wanted to say here is not the transition but "the character replacement itself is the percentage of the population that is scheduled to be made by the end of FY 2025," so I would like to reconsider the contents of the document based on the points you have pointed out.

Regarding the second point, since it is still a preliminary report for local governments that have completed the transition without applying the transitional measures on page 7, we have not been able to fully investigate the actual situation of each local government. We would like to confirm the situation etc. with local governments in the future. There have been discussions on non-conforming family registers, but there are really various types. I don't think it is a matter of doing this or not doing this just because they are non-conforming family registers. Since there may be various options, we would like to consider how to organize them while looking at the notification (actual) of characters used in non-conforming family registers.

Members: , is it possible to sort out Digital Agency's proposal a little more? The proposal presented by the members is easier to understand. Setting aside whether or not the character "fuji" is good as an example, the members' proposal illustrates that there are various characters. On top of the many "fuji" on the left side, I think it would be better to clearly write "This is a character for the family register and it is the same as before." On the other hand, the character "fuji" to be replaced on the right side should be able to show clearly at the beginning that it is "used for notices and certificates, etc."

It is important to have a legal basis for public relations for those who actually change the characters, but it would be nice if you could show the extent of the impact a little more. It would be helpful if you could give examples of what could happen, such as "There may be a problem with the wrong character on your diploma or bank account." It would also be good if you could give an explanation that you can be prepared for, such as "If such a problem occurs, please take such a measure."

When residents have problems with text, it is important to explain in the materials whether they should contact the local government or Digital Agency, and where the contact point is.

There are many things that I would like to explain, such as "What is the administrative standard character?", but I think it would be good to put the message "What kind of influence can it have on you? Come here if you are in trouble" at the front.

Secretariat: We will consider whether the PR materials can be expressed in a more easy-to-understand manner. The scope of impact is currently being coordinated among the relevant ministries and agencies, and if it is not in time for the provision of this PR material, we would like to provide information on the website.

Secretariat: Secretariat. Since the working team raised specific examples of financial institutions, driver's license, schools, etc. in identity verification, Digital Agency is making inquiries to related ministries and agencies such as National Police Agency and Financial Services Agency to understand the impact. It is also necessary to proceed so that there will be no impact, and we would like to consider issuing an administrative notice to each ministry and agency to request related organizations to make it known. At present, we are checking the future of identity verification in analog form, but as My Number Card is spreading, how to secure the authenticity of the person is a matter to be considered in the future.

Members: In relation to what I just said, I thought that it would be difficult to reach a conclusion on whether the content of the public relations is good or not unless we carefully examine what kind of impact the change of characters would have and whether we could deal with it appropriately.

Members: This concludes my exchange of views. Thank you, Members, for your valuable comments. Finally, I would be grateful if the Secretariat would have any communications to make.

Secretariat: Thank you very much for your time today. We are considering holding the next meeting of the Advisory Panel around June or July, and I would like to inform you of the date after scheduling.

Members: This concludes today's agenda. Thank you very much, everyone.

Greater than or