The first meeting of the Opposition Coordination Council

According to information

from the Russian Union of Industrialists.

Dear colleagues!

The financial figures are, of course, simply indecent.

Let us focus on our own affairs.

Please, starting with the first meeting.

The nameplates are arranged alphabetically.

I think everyone will be able to find their own nameplate.

And to begin,

and first of all, I ask you.

Exactly.

Already 27,

28, 39 — two are required.

I do not know here.

You still have to draft and adopt the rules of procedure.

And if, under your rules of procedure, a quorum of two-thirds of the representatives turns out to be too small.

But for now, more than half of you are present.

Well, perhaps.

A few words about how today's meeting will be organized.

The first points are introductory and, in many ways, decisive.

After all, there has been almost no

experience yet of working in a representative body.

He called for a vote.

Veterans will also be involved in this work.

We will have to deal with this.

And then we will have to make a decision.

The presiding officer at the meeting.

By tradition, the meeting is opened.

After these words, the oldest of the elected members of the

Coordination Council, Piontkovsky, takes the floor.

He will then put

the matter to a vote.

The issue of electing a chair will also come up,

if the meeting protocol is not XD, but already in accordance with the rules of procedure.

That is, first we will still need to adopt the rules of procedure.

We are beginning our work

with everyone.

Vladimir Bukovsky and others sketched out the initiative.

The rules of procedure are short, just three pages long.

Do you have that much time for discussing the direction?

It is deliberately short—not to provoke quarrels, or because someone here deliberately

structured it this way in order to encourage you as much as possible to adopt it

and develop proposals on how it should function?

That is absolutely impossible.

This is the last thing the Central Committee

did for the new convocation.

From here on, the work begins.

Within

it, we must carry out our activities.

But before

drafting it ourselves, essentially,

we will have to finish with the elections and offer the Coordination Council meaningful work.

I will take advantage of the fact that for now there is not yet and still

I am not.

And I will say a few words on behalf of everyone.

A significant number of its members are present here, and.

Here we are with you at the beginning of the

2000s.

These were very difficult times, legally speaking,

very interesting and unprecedented.

Everyone very, very much wants

for you to succeed.

He lived up to the hopes of his voters.

So if we can help further in any way with the development of

our active work, then of course, please reach out.

It is very good that rules of procedure have appeared, ones that everyone could follow,

because the work of such a body will give you the opportunity

as Alexander rightly wrote, to work effectively.

The first thing a person taking part in the work of an organization must understand is

that on average they will have to speak 45 times

less than they listen and

conduct decision-making procedures.

This is also very important for us, especially considering that

everyone here is very different and represents different ideological currents

and perhaps, despite that, everything may work out.

A few words about the voting results.

The official voting results were finalized and approved

by the Central body at 8:10 p.m. on Monday the 20th of

October, that is, 10 minutes after voting ended.

These results were announced at 9:00 p.m.

on Monday on the TV Rain channel.

They will not be changed.

A total of 81,801 voters cast ballots,

83,779 votes were declared invalid

according to the criteria that had been established in advance.

by the Central

before the voting results were finalized.

The remaining votes, accordingly, were valid, and

30 deputies who received the highest number of votes

on the general civic list were elected.

To get in via the lists, as was, as was

provided for by the election procedures.

So, there is one well-known complication there.

Just in case, I will say it once again.

Under those strict criteria,

which were developed by the Coordination

which were developed by the Central Committee.

Not all the votes were clearly manipulated.

The votes

were, and could have been discarded.

And for reference, for your information, we also published the voting results

as they would have looked if they had been fully cleansed of those votes.

And in that case, the balance of forces in the left curia would have changed.

There, two others

would have made it through and been elected.

Alexander

But this information

was only for discussion of the official

voting results.

But if you are able to decide, not for yourselves,

the question of transferring mandates to those who

received more votes than the voting

of those voters who did not vote by lists,

then, in the view of the Central Election Committee,

that would be more democratic and more correct.

But all of this remains at the discretion of the first assembly of elected representatives.

This is the only such disputed issue regarding the voting results.

All the other results have been published; they have undergone a technical audit.

For the first time in the history of online voting in Russia and in the world,

the full data set on how our

82,000 voters distributed a total of more than 2 million votes will be available for analysis.

All of this data exists.

Mathematicians and programmers are working with it.

There are already several interesting statistical findings.

I think it will be useful for everyone; this also needs to be addressed. One

more small piece of information seems important to me tonight.

A report has already been published today, and I read it.

It turns out that if you look at the results of our voting

If we break it down by Moscow and the regions, there is virtually no difference at all.

That is, if you look at the votes cast by

residents of Moscow and the Moscow Region, then the elected Coordinating Council

would have been exactly the same in terms of the

general civic list and would have differed by just one position

on the left-wing and nationalist lists,

if only residents of the regions had taken part in the voting.

Likewise, if we include Moscow and the Moscow Region, the center would also have turned out exactly the same.

It seems to me that what matters is that our voters

have more unity here than is commonly believed.

And the same is true when we break down the vote by offline voting.

If we look at the voting data for those who voted

online, and the voting results for those who voted

at polling

stations, then the difference is only two positions at most.

If we take into account only one set of results or only the other, then the deviation

from the elected composition in this case would amount to about one person.

So here too, there is clearly no significant divide when it comes to voting.

It turns out that in electoral terms there are no substantial

discrepancies at all.

So, in short,

I hope I have not taken up too much of the Coordinating Council's time.

It is time to get to work.

The last thing I will do before handing over the floor

is once again to give you these materials,

which were printed

using the remaining budget of the Central Election Committee,

formed mainly from our organizational contributions,

for the most part, well,

some people, of course, call this

talk of mandates completely unnecessary pomposity.

In my view, it is more what gives this table its legitimacy.

That is the real situation.

I am not going to turn this into a whole story

about the elections and

the distribution, I

here

of figures, so just pass them around and take your copies.

Our meeting is being held in accordance

with the procedure we established in advance.

Only elected members of the Coordinating Council may participate,

and the transfer of voting rights is not possible, except in the known cases

of political prisoners and those living in exile for political reasons.

Under these criteria, representatives of candidates are participating

for 30 candidates

and a representative of Daniil Konstantinov

or the leader

whose leadership role has been affected.

They confirmed their authority in advance.

We verified their authority with the relevant

council bodies.

Otherwise, everyone is present in person, and each person votes for themselves with their own vote.

In the rules we drafted, we also

provided for a procedure for remote participation

via Skype; as I understand it, this is possible and will remain possible.

For now, however, there is no formal regulation in place.

That is the situation.

NEMTSOV. Absent.

He authorized his representative, Olga Shorina,

but she cannot take part in the meeting,

since Nemtsov is neither a political prisoner nor in exile.

But since he is participating via Skype and voting,

she will promptly convey his position on votes

as they come up, and so on.

At present, the procedure

for counting the votes of absent members is still being developed.

One more issue

that the Central Election Committee wanted to submit to the Coordinating Council, but did not manage to,

we simply did not have enough time physically.

All of this is set out throughout the document.

And probably some things were not done, given the current circumstances affecting the person involved.

But in any case, this concerns the Central Election Committee's financial report.

We have to show our supporters where everything went.

But apparently we will do this electronically on our platform.

We simply did not manage to print and distribute it.

So,

therefore, once again, I have only one proposal

which, of course, will have to be decided after the vote.

This is a matter of confirming the time limit.

I specifically said 12 minutes,

so that we would have enough time.

Therefore

what do I want to propose?

Once again.

It worked out thanks to

Sergei.

It seems that you have enough copies.

I want to hand over the floor now, apparently, since people have taken their seats there.

I was

personally present for the vote.

The issue of adopting the temporary rules is very short and simple.

You will still have to draft and adopt the main rules of procedure.

You simply received it after the meeting

as requested.

Thank you.

Please.

Against?

Abstained?

Adopted unanimously.

Under the rules, the meeting is opened by the oldest person present of the

Coordinating Council.

Thank you.

Colleagues.

Indeed, in world practice

there is a tradition

known from Russia's political history as well, allowing the oldest deputy to open the session.

The last time this happened on a large scale was 80 years ago, when power

at meetings of the budget process

was not something we dealt with.

Analogies

with a youth parliament would be inappropriate.

Today in France, when France has acquired

its oldest member.

Indeed,

this council, within it,

various ideological forces are represented,

practically all currents

of contemporary Russian political life.

For obvious reasons, United Russia cannot be counted among them.

But under no circumstances do we declare, nor do we have the right to declare ourselves

a parliament, simply a parliament, or an alternative parliament,

because

we were elected

not by the population of Russia

and all its citizens, but by a rather small part of them.

Moreover, we ourselves consciously limited

the number of voters who would elect us,

by imposing a condition that they not very clearly

at one time on a clearer formulation.

But there are voters who share the goals and values of the protest movement.

Therefore, first and foremost, we are a headquarters of like-minded people,

Paradoxical as it may seem, people of different political convictions.

We are united in our views regarding

the goal for which we have gathered.

And that goal is the removal from power

of an illegitimate regime.

The coordination of the transitional period

from Putin's mandate to a democratic republic.

Of course, this goal cannot.

This is a historic task, and this task

cannot be carried out by 45 people.

Therefore

in my brief remarks, I will allow myself to return

to the proposal I have already put forward

over the past two months, and which is now being supported by more and more

members of the Coordinating Council and civic activists.

It would be a crazy waste of human capital on our part

to gather our supporters only for one-time use.

And only on voting day.

I propose that all registered voters

become members of a permanent Free Russia Forum.

And in fact, this forum should become the main institution

of our protest movement.

And the Coordinating Council should be its working body.

Moreover, this forum can and should keep expanding

through those people who wish to join us.

And on whom our work will make

a positive impression.

On all

fundamental questions of the protest movement's strategy and tactics

and on shaping the scenario for the transitional period

votes by forum participants should be held.

In fact, decisions should be made through that very mechanism.

That wonderful, wonderful software product, Democracy

2, which enabled us to conduct

such a brilliant campaign.

Once again, on behalf of all our voters, I would like to express gratitude to the organizers

and all the election commissions for their brilliant and creative work,

which made these elections the most important political event

of this autumn and gave our work a wonderful start.

This same team will also be able to

ensure the functioning of the Free Russia Forum.

The Free Russia Forum should become, if you like, a modern electronic gathering place

for the founding fathers and founding mothers of a new democratic Russia.

Therefore, in closing, I would like to address

not only the

62,000 voters,

but also our 1,000,000 supporters.

You ask when and how

a peaceful anti-criminal revolution will triumph in Russia?

Join the Free Russia Forum

and bring its victory closer every day yourselves.

Thank you for your attention!

In this

hall there is one more person besides me

who, on the first day of our meeting—and not only on the first day—

has certain privileges

compared with the other 40 participants.

And in his case, those privileges are

more substantive and more pleasant than simply age.

This is Alexei Anatolyevich

Navalny, who in his personal capacity became the winner

of our election by receiving the largest number of votes.

For which, if nothing else, we congratulate him.

I think it would be right if we choose him as chair.

For our first session.

Are there any other nominations?

Mr. Katz, please.

Andrei Illarionov.

We have recorded one nomination

for the post of chair of the first session.

I believe: Navalny, Illarionov,

Sergei Udaltsov, Sergei Udaltsov.

If there are any other nominees, they may withdraw.

Olga, dear comrade

Medvedev!

Andrei, it's me.

Your proposal

to support Alexei Navalny's candidacy in this election

is noted.

I take your statement as a withdrawal.

In that case, we are left with

one candidate for the vote.

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny—who is in favor

of entrusting Navalny with conducting our first session?

Please raise your hands.

Who is against?

Who abstains?

The decision is adopted.

Please take the chair.

Is there a quorum this time or not?

I am not sure.

There is, but online

after the joint uncontested vote.

Thank you very much. I will now assume the duties

of presiding officer for this meeting only.

81,801 people expressed their will in such a way

that we ended up together in this room, and they placed upon us

They gave us a great mandate of trust, but they also placed enormous responsibility on us,

because we are to organize and coordinate the efforts of tens,

hundreds, thousands, and millions of people who want to achieve

positive change in our country, to achieve

a real and effective struggle

against the usurpation of power that has been taking place over the past 12 years.

It is our common task to justify

the hopes of these people, to live up to this mandate of trust, and not to betray it.

Our situation is entirely unprecedented.

As yet, we have neither rules of procedure nor rigid procedures,

and Russia has never had experience with gatherings like this.

All previous coordinating bodies were formed rather on the principle

either of mutual loyalty or of ideological like-mindedness.

Here we have people of different ideological views sitting together, and therefore

I urge everyone to remember that our main rule, our principal

procedural norm that we must observe, is reason and mutual respect.

If we keep this basic procedural rule in mind,

then everything will work out for us.

Today's session is naturally

limited in time, because at 3:00 p.m. we have scheduled

an event in which, I am sure, all members of the Coordinating Council

will take part—a solidarity action with political prisoners.

We must finish no later than shortly after 2:00 p.m.

And the agenda for today's session,

it seems to me, is also defined quite naturally.

First, we already have a statement

regarding political prisoners that was adopted by absentee vote.

There is also an action program concerning political prisoners.

In addition, a number of members of the Coordinating Council have prepared a new statement on this issue.

I propose making this the first item, and the second item

and I propose considering various procedural issues

the replacement of votes, the election of an executive secretary

or any other person who would chair the next meeting,

the platform through which we will provide information, make decisions, and so on

there are a large number of procedural issues that we will have to discuss.

It seems to me that beyond the second item, we are unlikely to have time to discuss anything today.

Are there any other proposals for the agenda?

Yes, I have a proposal to briefly include among these items

the issue of discussing the timing of a new mass opposition march,

just in outline form, to sketch out dates and time frames.

There are 15 minutes for that.

I am ready to report briefly during

today's meeting, very briefly, that

We have heard the proposal.

The chair has made one,

and in order to

discuss this proposal, and some other proposals that follow from it,

I propose two or three important issues, including discussing this.

No objections.

The agenda has three items: political prisoners, procedure, and mass mobilization.

If there are no objections to

that, I consider it adopted, please.

Our colleagues Davidis and Konstantinov have prepared

a statement on political prisoners.

As I understand it, colleague Konstantinov is reporting on it at this very moment.

DAVIDIS: Colleagues, we have one microphone,

the microphone is passed directly from hand to hand.

If we want to speak, we raise our hand.

I am taking down names so that everyone can be given the floor.

I would just urge you to remember that 45 people speaking for three minutes each

is already a great deal.

So we are extremely pressed for time.

Sergei Davidis. Report.

As far as I know,

I have had to

read out the draft that I received from

the representatives involved, so that it would be possible

If we have had time to familiarize ourselves with it,

I think this can now be done

in terms of adopting

the statement; the addition that was adopted urgently, the relevance of it

lies, first of all, in the fact that such a statement

is an unequivocal statement by the National Council.

One part of its members, even if they represent a majority,

and second, it clearly focuses attention on the Bolotnaya case (the prosecution following the 2012 Bolotnaya Square protest)

and the related Anatomy of Protest cases, on the one hand,

and on solidarity with members of the Coordinating Council,

who are currently being subjected to political persecution

as set out in the text.

Seven members of the Coordinating Council

illustrate the extent of this persecution and who is behind bars.

Two are

in hiding from this unlawful persecution.

In fact, I do not see any need, given the tight

agenda, to

go into detail.

All of this is written in the text, and I propose adopting this text.

According to the text of the document, we have

only.

The organizers printed it out and distributed it to everyone.

Those who do not have the text, raise your hands,

and those who can share, raise your hands as well.

Thank you.

Question.

Sergei Davidis: Questions, please.

One text, three pages.

I will just ask.

I did not have time to read it.

Substantively, it is absolutely correct,

pause

more or less.

As someone who does not fully know it, I would propose adopting it as a basis and asking the council

to let those who wish refine it more precisely.

Measure

and after that make a decision, according to Gazeta.Ru.

But that is not a question, it is a proposal.

There cannot be specific answers on the time frame.

Our rules set time limits.

That is precisely the procedure we are discussing now, you know.

BONDARIK: The question is on the agenda.

There are at least two questions.

DAVIDIS: Colleague Vinokurov's question is why, regarding

the earlier statement that was made some time ago, and

why, in principle?

Second?

It is similar in that, first of all,

there were objections that the statement was

a statement by only part of the Coordinating Council's members, since it was adopted by a majority only,

But in the absence of specific rules and before they were worked out, members

could not take part, and that is exactly what we are dealing with now.

GELFAND: We will be able to take into account

the need to implement it in its current form,

while allowing some period of time to accept suggestions for amendments.

Second, it focuses attention, on the one hand,

on the most outrageous persecutions of the present day, the Bolotnaya case

and the related Anatomy of Protest cases, and on the other hand, on solidarity

with members of the Coordinating Council who are being unlawfully persecuted through criminal proceedings.

Another question.

Davidis: If you wish to speak, I ask you

to speak regarding the parallel statement, with the broadcast in mind.

Let us try not to speak without a microphone, because the meeting is being broadcast.

We have a great many people without microphones, and otherwise they cannot hear.

I believe that this exact text should be adopted.

From the proposers now.

If I may, I would ask on behalf of two people,

who are close friends of a comrade

who is in custody.

Konstantin Shirshov: Excuse me,

today he received a three-year sentence; his name has just been mentioned from the podium.

And we know that Comrade

Colonel Oleg Alexeyevich Polyansky is there, and in general

many are doing it,

they have been voiced.

I would like you to respond, thank you.

Thank you.

Any more remarks regarding the defense of Oleg

Sobol as an Investigative Committee employee.

I fully support Nikolai's statement at the meeting, but so far

the response here has been evasive.

Because there is also another unlawful criminal case concerning

the first case, and at

the present moment, men and women facing criminal charges are in

the place where Alexei Ionov is, and Sergei Minaev himself is there as well.

The police have not yet disclosed it.

The reserve fund is preparing to launch

fund.

It seems to me that statements were made.

Statements that require.

Information or discussion, or

citations from contemporary Russian experts as witnesses.

And all the individuals listed in advance

including Navalny and all the other individuals,

with neither the circumstances explained here,

nor any other issues connected with the cases,

but simply, as I understand it, all the activists are listed,

connected with the opposition who have been prosecuted.

As I understand it, Oleg Bondarenko is proposing to expand the list.

It seems to me that such statements, without discussion by the council and its approval,

should not be issued in writing, because otherwise we will not be taken seriously.

It will be perceived as a kind of draft, simply a list of all

the colleagues who are being persecuted

for political reasons.

It seems to me that this can only be accepted as a draft,

and not adopted in its current form.

It really should be revised and softened, as my colleague suggested.

Gaskarov next time on the same website.

And it does not significantly differ from the previous statement in this respect.

In the text there is a phrase from the courtroom: perhaps the next actions in defense of

include this. I propose that we support the rally and

support us.

Last time we simply designated the event as important

witness.

Thank you, please take your places, get ready.

Konstantin.

I would like to respond to the proposal simply

in response to Konstantinov.

On the one hand, Mr. Bondarik, we are deliberately not listing all cases

of political repression that exist in Russia; there are far more of them.

That is, there are dozens,

perhaps hundreds, with FSIN staff in custody.

If it is impossible to include everything in one series, as a document covering all cases.

Here, obviously, on the one hand, there are those people who are being prosecuted in the case

directly connected with the development of the protest movement

and which has become a symbol of the confrontation between the protest movement

and the authorities' repressive machine: the Bolotnaya case (the prosecution following the 2012 Bolotnaya Square protests) and the Anatomy of Protest case,

on the one hand.

On the other hand, there are us, those being subjected to persecution,

the members of the Coordinating Council.

I would like to note, sir, that, without a doubt,

there is a detailed legal analysis for each of these cases.

In a statement by the Coordinating Council, it is completely impossible

to set all of this out in detail for every single case.

The full tragic picture has been documented; it can be reviewed online.

Human rights organizations, members of the Union with political prisoners,

the clearing center, Memorial, and others are working on these cases.

If someone needs time to familiarize themselves with it.

Of course, it can be postponed.

Whatever is necessary can be done.

But I do not think

that it is appropriate here to speak about

a sufficiently organized council

of criminal prosecution in each individual case.

There is clear and convincing argumentation showing that

this investigation and political persecution are unlawful

and specifically politically motivated.

And finally, what I wanted to say in response regarding the persecution of

Alexei Navalny,

criminal prosecution in Crimea, thank God.

That is, the fact that he is a defendant is itself what he supported,

having spent a good half of the time in that status.

And now Valery Konstantinov is preparing to speak.

Dear colleagues, I represent the scholar

Daniil Konstantinov, and I will speak very briefly.

First of all, I urge you to adopt this statement today,

and not postpone its adoption until later.

Because today, after this session ends,

we will all go to Lubyanka Square to express our position,

to express our civic stance on political repression.

By that time, as I understand it, the statement should be adopted.

First. Second, whatever else.

Navalny, in response, like any condemnation, from the standpoint of formal logic,

is an assertion taken as an axiom and is evaluative in nature.

So consult a textbook on formal logic, and you will see that.

Third, if we

doubt

that the elected Coordinating Council,

our political comrades,

our associates with whom we are beginning to work together,

if we doubt that these are decent and honest people,

then we are calling into question

the meaning, conduct, and results of the vote.

I urge us to take this proper course and adopt the proposed resolution.

Thank you

to our colleagues in.

Kaliningrad.

The political statement did the job

after the filing of the statement

the evidentiary basis to the Constitutional

Court, the Supreme Council, the political statement, our position,

the position of citizens regarding the persecution of citizens.

It seems to me

that this is illegitimate from a political point of view,

which cannot be said of the parties of citizens

of Moldova, which will proceed.

I think we should stop at these.

More prisoners.

We will continue the work.

And for now, political statements remain.

Thank you, colleagues.

Dear colleagues!

It appears that the issue is more complicated.

The text of the document could benefit if law-enforcement-related wording were revised.

And then it will be put to a vote

by email.

But on the other hand, the situation is such that, and here I think,

it would be very right

if this statement were adopted today during our visit

to Moscow.

As I understand it, at least for now, there have been no

serious principled objections to this document,

nor any major objections to its core provisions.

But the issues are, in my view, editorial in nature, as Mr. Gelman said.

And I would add, from the standpoint of legal language, in editorial terms,

because some expressions are clearly not quite appropriate politically or legally.

In this connection, I propose that we form right now

an editorial commission consisting of the authors,

obviously the authors of this statement, Mr. Davis,

Mr. Konstantinov, adding

Mr. Gelfand to this group.

And I hope that the lawyers from our editorial teams

so that within the remaining hour and a half

of our meeting they can make the necessary amendments,

and then, at the end of our meeting, bring forward

the corrected and clarified document for discussion and a vote,

if this document is adopted, to issue this statement

to everyone

always and

thank you.

Oleg Dolgikh. And then,

I believe that the document must be adopted today,

because in this situation I agree with our colleague, with our colleague,

because there may be some excessive pathos, but,

in my view, it most likely does not resolve the misunderstanding.

And as for the absolutely fair remark

of anyone, anyone.

There is the phrase saying that Navalny will be held liable.

To criminal liability, of course, does not correspond to reality.

Which, as a lawyer, is unclear to me.

Being held criminally liable.

That means that a court verdict has already entered into legal force.

I would suggest wording this phrase as follows

illegally designated as a suspect.

I understand that the target in this contrived, fabricated case is Alexei Navalny.

Too many of our lawyers knew that being charged as a defendant,

amounts to criminal liability.

It does not matter; this is the organizing group.

Colleague PARKHOMENKO and the chair.

It is necessary to draw attention to one thing.

In fact, two things.

Were not the main criterion, in

my observation.

One is Lev Gudkov, and the other is Yabloko deputy Ilya Yashin.

Please, may appoint his representative to

today's meeting.

We have no fundamental objections.

In my view, this is a formal principle that is cited here

in order to understand who is being accused and who is not mentioned in the text

or is being persecuted for political reasons, that is entirely sufficient.

People and citizens are speaking here.

These are the people elected to the National Council, and the people

are going through the Bolotnaya case (the prosecution related to the 2012 Bolotnaya Square protests).

It is absolutely obvious that political parties

are represented here very precisely.

Thank you very much.

The remarks by colleagues sitting here, I do not know, in our time, excuse me, seem

to offer a unique chance to look seriously beyond

the discussion of this issue.

Nikolai Alexandrovich, St. Petersburg.

There was a comment about the document being too mild.

I believe that the document is indeed being deliberately softened in an inappropriate way,

while the diplomats' firm wording in it simply states the facts.

Thank you.

Colleague, now, please.

I already

fully support myself from both sides

to express my concern that

under circumstances clear to all of us,

in which all this is happening, this is the second statement by the CS.

And after six days of this body's work.

That is, I suggest that to the broad circle of our supporters and opponents

it should be clear why the first statement differs from the second.

I simply urge everyone not to rush and churn out these statements.

Andrei, if possible, I would ask for a preamble to the statement.

So that at the beginning of August this text says more,

why we adopted this statement once again,

we to the same extent,

colleague Udaltsov repeated very accurately

not only do we still need to discuss our proposals,

our friends.

Without a doubt, the statement must be adopted.

Today our people are sitting

to our shame, in circumstances that are clear and contemptible.

I have a proposal right away for the initiative group.

But here even the organizing council should make

some proposal from the Russian opposition already.

There is a phrase here: appeals to the public

with a call to begin an indefinite campaign

of protest against political repression.

I think, for, you know,

we want to develop a budget plan for this campaign

take responsibility and set clear deadlines.

Because if it is this vague, then who is this 'we'?

What exactly are we initiating here?

I am not objecting; I asked for this to be formulated

more clearly and in final form.

I pointed that out.

Thank you very much, dear colleagues.

It also seems to me that it is our responsibility to adopt this statement today.

We have two people, two members of the CS, in detention, and several people

are in hiding, while several others are under criminal prosecution.

Therefore it will simply be incomprehensible if even on this issue we are unable

to reach a compromise.

Today, I would propose right now, given that we cannot expand

the number of political prisoners; there are too many of them in Russia.

This would take us days

or even weeks, just to list all the names and examine each one.

I would propose adopting it as a basis for now.

Then ask our editorial group to continue.

And as our final decision for today, at the very end, adopt it in full

and leave here to go to the rally.

Given that we have adopted this statement as a basis, there are generally no

objections.

If there are no objections, then let us vote to adopt this decision.

Agreed.

First of all, those against

abstained.

Thank you very much.

Editorial group: who wanted to block the entire Dolgikh group?

Konstantin Gelfand.

PARKHOMENKO

PARKHOMENKO now.

A special opinion.

All right, then, please.

Davidis is with us, please.

Right now it is about 40 minutes without our participation.

I will try to do this briskly and quickly.

Colleague Kats has spent quite a bit of time on procedure for this.

We are giving you no more than 25 minutes for this.

And now, now

we must.

Receive

seven people.

And anyone who wishes, anyone who wishes, yes,

of course, we still have a quorum, they,

they sit together, because they sit together at one table

and quietly discuss this issue in whispers while continuing to participate in the meeting.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Within the framework of this same issue.

We have that very action program that Sergei also spoke about

and which was adopted first by absentee voting

of the members of the CS in the statement by the members of the CS.

Therefore, those colleagues who have already done something within the framework of this plan,

I suggest giving us a very brief update.

For my part, I want to tell you that there has been no need,

I had noted down the person responsible for finding lawyers and so on.

I spoke with Razvozzhayev's wife,

and there are already more than enough lawyers there.

No additional funding is required at the moment.

However, she does need funding for the lawyers

they hired in Kyiv, for the investigation of the Kyiv incident.

And we have stated that we will cover all expenses related to this.

If there are additional legal expenses,

we will take care of them.

At present, together with RosUznik (a Russian aid group for political prisoners).

Lyubov Sobol, who has stepped away for a moment, is compiling

a list of individuals whom we consider

responsible for organizing unlawful criminal prosecutions.

In practice, this is being handled by RosUznik and each person's lawyers.

That is, for now there will be names, and for each one there will be a clear justification

for why we believe that this person, through their unlawful actions, is involved

in unlawful criminal prosecution, kidnapping, torture, and so on.

So that later, when we demand

some form of prosecution of that person, we will be able to explain

why we are demanding it, and so on.

Garry, do you have anything to report on the international side?

Very briefly, yes.

We hope that

the bills

related to the Magnitsky case in the United States,

will be passed in the near future, and

at the very least, the American bill

in the form in which it is currently under consideration

by Congress in coordination with us, provides for an expansion of the list.

It seems very important to me, and my efforts will be directed

toward making these lists public.

These are fairly complex technical procedures,

and they require a huge amount of coordination both in America and in Europe.

Nevertheless, if we manage at least

to take this important first step for the country,

then later we will be able to submit

more and more new lists, and

it is very important for us that this process finally get off the ground.

I would like to remind everyone once again that

opposition to the Magnitsky Act

is a top priority of Russian foreign policy.

This is the document they practically wrote at home themselves.

That is, they understand

what consequences

certain sanctions may lead to, and can indeed lead to,

against people who are guilty of crimes committed in Russia.

I think our chances are improving.

Unfortunately, the overall direction of the situation

is being affected, among other things, by the worsening situation in Russia.

It seems to me that within the year, at least,

in America, after they are passed.

Thank you very much.

Let me remind you that our colleagues Kasparov, Nemtsov, and Kara-Murza

have been designated responsible for interacting

with international bodies, the European Union, the relevant UN commission, and

the relevant authorities in the United States in order

to subject these villains of ours to similar measures,

to conduct the same kind of campaign as against the villains responsible for the death

of Sergei Magnitsky.

Would anyone else like to add anything about our specific

program and the measures we have outlined?

Sergei Udaltsov—just a reminder, the microphone.

Assistant.

Friends, we should propose

quite naturally, the statement that will be adopted today.

I hope

to begin a large-scale signature campaign in support of it

not only as a statement by the five-member Coordinating Council,

but by gathering as many signatures as possible.

This is not exactly a tool by which you can force anything, friends.

But as a public advocacy campaign, it is very powerful.

So I think that if, say, 1,000 people sign the statement,

well-known people, perhaps not only from Russia—here

we should first of all appeal to our well-known performers,

cultural figures, writers, artists, and so on, as well as scholars.

That would be great.

And a second point.

It seems to me that in this regard we need to clearly spell out

regular activities, not just one-off actions.

A certain tradition and atmosphere have already taken shape around this.

At the Investigative Committee in Moscow, people tried to form a human ring around it by joining hands.

True, that does not always work.

But with a joint effort, we will manage to do it.

I am simply concerned.

I see a responsibility here to ensure

that everyone also makes an effort.

Once a week our people sit there until no one is being released,

coming to the Investigative Committee.

And in the regions, this can be done at the regional investigative departments,

by joining hands and forming the same kind of line.

This does not require any approvals,

and if people behave properly, there are no problems with the police.

But it is beautiful, symbolic, and right.

I will do everything I can.

I would like to ask a question.

Before giving you the floor, I would like to remind everyone of our plan:

the measures include compiling a list of persons involved in organizing

the criminal prosecution, and filing appeals with oversight bodies

in the United States, the European Union, the UN, and the United Kingdom; lawyers for those charged in the case

of May 6, where additional lawyers are being brought in.

For Razvozzhayev, this is not currently necessary.

In addition to the physical aspect of the case, there is funding for lawyers and funding

Ashurkov is already doing incomparably more work with the families of those arrested.

ROMANOVA: Organizing a large-scale public campaign to provide information

about what Sergei is talking about; those responsible will calmly be assigned for

carrying out a mass action.

And the coordinator is Alexei.

As for Pavel, he is open to this,

and I would suggest that he do the following.

First, for all the points in the plan that already exists,

the responsible persons have largely already been identified.

And when I drafted this plan, I wrote it

in line with my own understanding of things.

I suggest looking carefully at this plan and adding yourself wherever

each member of the Coordinating Council would like to contribute.

That is the first point.

And the second is to supplement the plan with those points

that each person is ready to carry out personally.

Not to come up with something and assign it to the Coordinating Council,

but to come up with something and do it yourself.

I think that this format of work will be the most effective.

Colleague Dzyadko, please.

I wanted to say this.

Once again, I want once again

to read it through, and I hope with participation.

And second,

I don't know which of these dates the action will take place on, perhaps also on the 29th,

on the Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Political Repression,

which will be held across the country as

memorial events.

I am sure that this is

worth supporting these events, that's all.

These actions

practically speaking,

since all of this is very worthwhile.

Let's put it this way.

We welcome this.

What do you think, head...

of the Russian...?

Time

It is of very great importance for us,

it seems.

Right now

much of it is being absorbed by years of a spontaneous mass campaign.

A whole campaign of putting up

stickers could begin there, and we can distribute them across the regions based on our experience.

And perhaps every person in various regions

and cities later on—perhaps this would help and be even more effective

in our cities, in Moscow and other regions, on city streets on a mass scale

with slogans in support of political prisoners and cosmonauts.

Thank you.

Following up on Sergei's proposal.

To continue Sergei's proposal about a mass signature drive for a protest statement.

This is exactly the kind of classic situation where yesterday

the Free Russia Forum would have been useful on this issue, if it were functioning for us today.

By tomorrow morning, we would have had 60,000 signatures on our petition.

Thank you very much,

colleagues, who else wanted to speak about the action plan in defense of this?

ALEXASHENKO, please.

A question.

We are discussing a specific task: funding.

For the lawyer.

We are discussing this with Alexander Vinokurov.

And Andrei Natsii.

We propose that all members of the Council publish an appeal calling for

people to vote.

First, and second, I would advise recommending the creation of a fund.

For guarantees and...

And to propose voting for these.

Thank you very much.

It is clear that this cannot be mandatory.

May I ask you, colleagues of Vinokurov,

how this can all be organized in practice, proposing contributions of 5,000 rubles.

No one is...

How can one limit

the amount to more, but not less?

Well, we are indeed discussing 5,000 rubles.

After all, the Council should start with itself.

If someone wants more influence.

Colleague Katz, please,

I... no?

Your opinion matters in all of this.

But it seems to me completely unacceptable to oblige organizations

and create the impression that they are trying to impose something.

That there will be...

There can be no obligation whatsoever.

These people can be

understood.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

It is clear that we cannot oblige anyone.

The prosecutor's office is already too involved.

But what is not clear to me is whether this is a personal donation, and whether it will be recorded.

Please tell us,

Alexander, will actions like this be carried out on a regular basis?

Especially since they will vary.

I think it would not be out of place for members of the Coordinating Council

to take part regularly in

exposing this, because

there are printing materials involved, the work of the print shop itself,

and a number of related expenses.

As far as I know, for example, it will happen in December.

I think the majority of colleagues will support the initiative.

Apparently.

Thank you, colleague Bondarenko. Let us sum up.

Thank you.

Please note that there are different campaigns here.

That is, you have

1,000 organizations

and political organizations on a regular basis.

I would also describe him as a young man.

Therefore, it seems to me,

after the meeting

leaders... it is lunch break now

right?

Thank you, colleagues.

This issue does not require a formal decision from us.

This is a list of activities,

and each person determines for themselves the degree of participation, whether to take part at all, whether to stand there personally,

5,000 rubles, 50,000 rubles, 500 rubles, participation in every picket or every other one.

Each participant in these activities decides independently, taking into account

what they think and how their voters will react to it,

how necessary they consider their involvement to be, to what extent they believe

that they need to be involved in this activity, and so on.

And I think that in a week we will be ready to summarize

the first results of implementing our action plan.

Once again, I urge colleagues to add their names to the items

they are interested in working on, and to supplement these items with new ones,

with new activities that people are ready to carry out.

With that, I would like to draw a line under the discussion of the specific plan.

And in the remaining 45 minutes, we need

to make the most important procedural decisions,

without which it will be difficult to hold the next meeting.

When, it seems, one of the kiosks in Armenia falls apart for us,

the next issue before us—the one we cannot avoid deciding—is this one.

As I have already said, we have detainees, we have people involved.

We must finally decide what rights can be represented here

in terms of a permanent and deciding vote.

By the next meeting, we need at least a temporary

but responsible secretary, a person who will organize the next meeting,

so that we do not have these annoying situations where statements have not been printed out

and so on.

We definitely need to make a decision

about which platform exactly will be the main platform for discussion.

Because right now our discussion is taking place on Demokratiya-2,

we are also discussing things elsewhere, in different formats, and so on.

We have a voting system.

It is clear that we cannot meet

very often in person,

but most decisions, obviously, can be made remotely.

Nazarbayev opened the vote.

These are the issues I propose we discuss.

In addition, it is necessary to decide

whether we should continue voter registration or not.

I believe that we should, of course, continue this system.

to continue registering people and continue attracting

as many people as possible, involving them in the decision-making process.

Voting is mandatory

and may involve larger groups of people.

And so I have outlined

the basic points that definitely need to be discussed

including members of Right Sector (a Ukrainian nationalist political movement), and so on.

Therefore, I suggest speaking briefly, if possible no more than three minutes

so that we can resolve the main issues,

and on those issues that we cannot resolve, we will reflect on them and put them to a vote

at the next meeting.

Please, regarding the rules of procedure,

of course.

Together with

a group of experts who opposed it,

when you used the draft rules of procedure that

thank God, and.

I proposed,

and all these comments, almost all of them,

I accepted; we have adopted

a decision.

It has also been decided that the procedure will be circulated in advance,

that is, everyone should review it before the next meeting.

This document, which appeared only recently,

and the president instructed that it be

submitted at the next meeting.

A great deal of participation was involved from the very beginning, throughout the day.

Everyone has items for voting and for the adoption of each of these procedural rules.

Now I am calling for

readiness to submit amendments immediately.

No, Maxim, you are proposing that your rules of procedure be adopted as the basis.

I repeat, the rules of procedure were sent to the team. Raise your hands, those

who have familiarized themselves with the rules of procedure; a debate has been written up, which,

well, about one-third.

Maxim, it seems to me that we are not yet ready to adopt it as the basis.

Yes, we can.

Adopt it as the basis at the next meeting, and for now submit

amendments and, perhaps, adopt it at the next meeting.

As the basis, and I myself.

Against the backdrop of what

colleague Udaltsov said, and

the working group.

Friends, I hope

he is sure that what was written on the 28th is sufficient.

I propose that all draft rules of procedure

If there is an instruction, check whether there is

another draft prepared on the basis of the rules of procedure,

and simply send them to all council members tomorrow.

It is correctly stated here that by November 2

a discussion should be held on a single platform that will be selected in

I hope not to create confusion in the work; such a firm agreement is вполне reasonable.

It is reasonable, though it makes for difficult work for the chair of the board.

If there are at least five more sets of rules, we will be discussing them all.

PANARIN

I object; of course, I am surprised.

Young people have gathered here.

This is very serious, and our Constitution is already at stake.

Therefore, I believe there is no need to rush here, because I listened carefully,

as carefully as possible, since it raised a number of serious objections.

But I think that immediately

to say that it adopted the rules in principle.

Let us say, given our time,

still, thank you, colleagues.

Karsky.

Brief remark: I think he was trying to convey

First of all, I would like to note that you, colleague Bondarik,

did indeed familiarize yourself with the rules of procedure and submitted four amendments to them.

Under no circumstances do I

propose adopting the rules posted there as the final rules of procedure.

We will adopt it as a basis, everyone will submit amendments, and at the next meeting

we will discuss the amendments, vote on each of them, and only then adopt the rules of procedure.

But I am absolutely not proposing that we adopt those rules just like that, immediately.

We will simply be making amendments to it, amendments to various parts.

This should be written down: that is all, one minute per speech.

And after that, you may propose two minutes or three seconds.

That is, correctly.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

And in fact, this decision seems quite reasonable to me.

As we have established, one-third of the council

has already familiarized itself with the rules of procedure that Maxim prepared.

I think the others will certainly be able to study it by November 1

and, if necessary, propose their own rules.

Thus.

Please, colleague Illarion

Mitrofanov.

Dear colleagues!

The rules of procedure are indeed one

of the most important internal documents for the work of our body.

Therefore, excessive haste in connection with

any low-quality document would be highly undesirable.

Second, piecemeal adoption.

Even of the first version of the rules of procedure, apparently, may be possible,

belongs in the official record of our Coordinating Council.

In no case should this be done by email, since we need to discuss

various amendments and corrections, the authors' responses, and additional changes.

Thus,

the earliest time when we will be able to approve

the first version of the rules of procedure is at the next meeting of the Coordinating Council.

In this connection, setting a deadline

within which one may submit to

either this draft of the rules of procedure,

or other draft rules of procedure that may be proposed.

In my view, setting November 2 as a cutoff is unreasonable, because

it seems to me that we will not hold the next meeting on November 2.

Therefore, my proposal is as follows: first,

if we have other draft rules of procedure, even if there are 45 of them,

how many members of the Coordinating Council are there?

Everyone has the full right to put forward their own draft,

however difficult that may be.

Each of us has that right, and we can do it.

Accordingly, let us say, a week before the next meeting,

of the full Coordinating Council, all drafts and, possibly,

all possible draft rules of procedure can be submitted for our internal discussions

and all possible proposed amendments to this

or that draft can also be submitted for the relevant discussions

at the next meeting of the Coordinating Council.

The first item to be voted on is the draft rules of procedure

that the current work will take as its basis.

After one or another draft rules of procedure is adopted as the basis,

amendments and changes are made to the draft that has been taken as the basis

in accordance with the discussion that will take place over the course of these,

say, several weeks.

Andrei, do I understand correctly that

the essence of your proposal is that the administration—Exactly right.

It seems to me that we really do need to think through carefully here

each of these proposals.

It is indeed possible that one of our colleagues will put forward, there should be,

perhaps, one or two more of some kind.

We need to compare the proposals for these rules of procedure.

And in a competitive

process

choose the option that is best for the majority, or for all members

of the Coordination Council, as the decision on the rules of procedure

and then refine the draft rules of procedure that we adopt as the basis.

Thank you, colleagues.

In that case, I would propose the following option.

We have it, and we are prepared to put up with that,

We are canceling the vote.

It is more important for us to get good rules of procedure than

for now.

For now, the drafter seems to be working successfully.

On time.

We really do have a key fork in the road on procedural issues.

Are we forming commissions, a bureau,

and some other governing bodies, or are we not forming them?

This is an important question.

Fortunately, we have the opportunity, since we were elected here

according to the principles of electronic democracy, and guided by those same principles,

to hold regular consultative votes

in order to determine, among other things, which decision

the majority of the commission's members are inclined toward; we will indeed propose this

to prepare our proposals and introduce amendments to all parts of the rules of procedure,

to hold consultative votes regularly

through Democracy-2, so that by the next meeting.

I assume

that not all members of the Coordination Council will be very interested in working on this,

but those who are interested will have the opportunity to immerse themselves

fully in this work so that at the next meeting

we can bring forward one or two drafts on which, we are confident, there will not be

too much debate over minor details or certain subtleties,

and one of the sets of rules will, of course, be supported by the majority.

There are no objections to such a decision.

Your final remark on this subject.

I am not opposed to such a decision.

It seems to me that once something has been used

for a vote, as you rightly said, it will be.

Just a small comment.

Sobyanin said it this way.

At the general meeting,

according to which there are two remarks.

It is presumably to be considered.

The first draft.

How should the chair be elected?

These are different proposals.

That is why all members of the council wrote

in different ways.

Sides, in their support.

In my view, that will not work.

We must adopt a new draft.

The rules of procedure fairly quickly

put one version to a vote, and then make amendments at the meeting.

There is no such article in the Constitution.

Final remark

everyone wrongly thought that he dealt only with benches.

Lately they have been insisting

that changes in the behavior

of Alexei Navalny are changing Maksim trali-vali.

If so, I apologize.

The proposal

from the chair—and this is our first warning bell.

Yes, and this is also a proposal not to limit the speech of a member of the Coordination Council,

especially when it concerns the minutes and the question of the rules of procedure.

For the time being, that is the final word; for now, we will try to work this way.

I hope that in time there will be

time

for us to be more economical with each other's time, but for now not to impose limits.

As for our colleague Katz's proposal, I have just said

that first we need to consider in its entirety

the draft rules of procedure, that is, to look at the

document.

After it has been adopted as a whole,

we can then look at each of these provisions.

And if Anatoly can propose, presumably, amendments

taken specifically from another set of rules that we like better than the one

adopted as the basis.

Perhaps all of this is already underway.

Thus,

the sequence of decision-making, after all, is to

make a decision on the document as a whole

and only then on its constituent parts.

Thank you.

Because your attention to how lively the discussion is

quite obviously shows how much time these documents require.

Because this is quite a professional team of people.

There are journalists, human rights advocates, and lawyers working on this, and simply

let me repeat once again: it seems to me that this confirms

that the work on the rules of procedure will be very intensive.

It should be done as it has been done, with delegations.

And as for that remark,

I would like to point out an obvious inconsistency, because 40 minutes ago

he was demanding that we not adopt as the basis the conclusion

of our political prisoners, which everyone supported.

And now we are being told that we should adopt it as the basis.

The rules of procedure required a two-thirds majority.

Therefore, it does not seem to me

that the proposal

made today is entirely justified,

because, in my view, as Andrei Nikolaevich Mironov told us, the discussion has already taken place.

We know what it requires.

And besides, if we have these guys' children,

and besides, I would once again like to draw attention to the fact

that if serious disagreements arise among us,

I would consider that even on such a question as

the structure of the Coordination Council,

we are entitled at some point to turn to our electorate.

If we truly understand that we are unable

to reach agreement and there are different positions, then let us use that platform.

And if we want the connection between the voters and the CC to exist,

then we can periodically hold a constitutional referendum.

Nothing prevents us from holding such a referendum

if such a need arises in the drafting of

the rules of procedure, which are,

as was rightly said here, the Constitution of the Coordination Council.

Thank you.

Colleague Lazareva has the floor.

I absolutely agree with this, because that is why I am here.

As for everyone who voted there, I would very much like, for my own understanding,

to determine whether we make decisions by some defined majority,

to which the minority then submits.

I still do not understand.

That is, for example, they really voted on today's actions, and they are supported by

members of the government; presumably someone does not support them and does not participate.

I believe we have all gathered here together and trust one another.

You know, there must be a majority that makes the decision, and

the minority complies.

Thank you.

It turns out to be wavering.

Because a referendum, by definition,

did not bring together the number of people who voted for it.

I see. Therefore,

I do not see any point in putting

the decision to a referendum or to public actions.

In Austria, there are people who decided to take

and, in general, jobs as well.

The draft that was proposed does in fact suggest a certain

dominance of the Democracy platform.

The Coordinating Council is categorically against the idea that our powers are much broader

than those of the people who voted in the square.

As for the question of the rules of procedure, I would say that this is a very serious matter,

and let us proceed carefully, because it will surely give rise to possible disputes.

I will not even go into it.

Nevertheless, I believe that even within the Coordinating Council

all of this falls within its authority before any referendum does.

Thank you, colleague.

Half an hour, colleague Thor, colleague Udaltsov.

He continues to remain silent.

At the end.

To begin with, I would like

this draft bill needs to be sent to all

the addresses of the members of the Coordinating Council.

Of course, we will find that many may, on the basis

of this draft, accept it, because they are very

and well. This issue

is on the agenda.

Thanks to them.

This draft emerged naturally.

In any case, we need to adopt at least a minimal decision today,

so that I can prepare later, when Udaltsov is present.

If we assume that

the matter will proceed according to the overall structure,

we can see that there are alternative options.

This is a very important question; could it perhaps be handled by...

As an option, especially under such severe time pressure,

they would already have to be submitted by tomorrow.

Today, it has actually been proposed to vote in principle on a document that two-thirds

would not recommend in a country where there is no internet access.

The second option, after adopting the overall structure as a basis,

is that we should then vote article by article on

each amendment and each article.

That is a normal approach. Third,

under no circumstances should this be put to a referendum through Democracy,

because the number of amendments and options will be quite substantial.

After a referendum, we will not be able to proceed.

Adopting such a decision would be absolutely pointless.

Moreover, starting with submitting for approval

procedural issues to the broad masses,

we undermine the authority of our assembly at its root.

It is foolish and pointless.

Let us take it as a basis and go article by article

within the Coordinating Council, without time limits.

I think one more meeting will be enough for discussion, and the following meeting

should be devoted to the final adoption of the rules of procedure.

Because we have at least five meetings of work ahead of us.

Still, our colleague does not agree

with that judgment, so I wanted to ask you a rather fundamental question: what does that mean in your view?

You are a religious person, and that is fine.

No, that cannot be done.

There is not much time left.

I do have a simple proposal,

Georgy Illarionov said that no deadlines are needed at all.

I disagree.

Let us set this clearly.

If it seems to you that October 28 is too tight a deadline for the rules of procedure,

Fine. Then here is an alternative.

November 1.

Let us set some deadline by which

drafts as a whole, with their own structure and architecture, can be submitted.

And after November 1, the details can be discussed on any platforms you like.

Then the in-person meeting of the Coordinating Council adopts one as the basis,

choosing from among these drafts, and possibly already begins working through it point by point.

In other words, I would propose that we close the discussion until November 1 and invite

everyone except Katz to submit their drafts, and those who wish may then continue

to look at people's opinions on the internet, but the decision, of course,

must be made by the Coordinating Council, not put to a broad public vote.

That is my proposal.

Thank you, Sergey. We will have,

I think, a clear understanding of what decision we want.

We need a tool.

So, in voting on this issue, on the rules of procedure, we now need to decide

on some place from which members of the Coordinating Council

officially receive information, so that there are no questions.

So that no one can say, 'I did not get it in the mailing list'—there must be a website or some place

that every member of the Coordinating Council

checks personally once a day, once a month, or once a week.

Where is the voting conducted?

For the discussion, I propose, taking into account the experience we already have and the fact

that we understand how all of this can be organized on Democracy.

Democracy-2 as such a platform.

Then we will know exactly where and what we will be discussing.

All right, colleagues, if there are no objections, I am putting

to a vote the question of who is in favor of adopting the platform

Democracy-2 as the official platform?

Please speak, colleagues from one side

who object. Yes.

I propose adopting

your first option as the platform, since there are already far more people there

registered, and to start working now, probably,

I do not see any point

in forcing, obliging, or heavily pressuring anyone.

Yes, colleague Kasparov, I would simply like to note

that Democracy-2 is convenient for us

because it allows both open and closed votes to be held

on personnel matters.

After all, we cannot conduct closed voting otherwise.

Yes, colleague Kasparov, coordinator,

that is not the same problem.

The problem is with the document.

It was connected with the question, and it was and will remain

that, certainly, if we are speaking

about our country.

First of all, the most popular platform

is the agency.

Here, at the meeting of the Coordinating Council,

I will say that we are the only democratic body.

It was precisely this mechanism that made it possible to elect our council.

It seems to me that it would be very strange, indeed very strange and probably inexcusable

in terms of cooperation, if we were to split off and move to another platform,

which, unlike Democracy, is not secure,

and then have to explain to our voters how they are supposed to vote properly.

All right, Alexander, I wanted

to say this, that

meaning that voting on Facebook on...

Democracy would allow us to preserve, to preserve

legitimacy, because we know for certain.

The work done by Komsomolka (a colloquial name for the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda),

set the tone, set the tone — is that not why today

the phrase is being seriously discussed that Facebook is functioning as an organized platform for democracy.

In my view.

Thank you, colleague.

Yashin, the corridor is set, the microphone is on.

Thank you.

Respect to you.

It seems to me that Facebook is the main platform.

Now everything depends on external factors.

I am Oleg Navalny.

Therefore, having some platform of our own,

where we ourselves can shape the discussion, is indispensable.

It does not merely seem so to us.

I think it is very important that

I am being asked,

and depending on you — please, keep to the corridor.

Alexander, I did not expect disorderly conduct from any of you.

Please, I am giving everyone a chance to speak.

No position has been determined there yet.

I believe that regarding the situation

with the arrest, it can be said that we are acting and offering support

as well. Thank you.

Nikolai Leonov. Colleagues, Bondarik and I

please ask your question,

dear colleagues,

We have already received at least two proposals

and a clear indication regarding the candidate platforms.

There is a proposal, and so on.

If there are any others. Other proposals.

As for the venue for conducting the relevant discussions and voting, please state them.

as clearly as possible, since everyone uses

different tools and understands what is being discussed,

and we should proceed to a vote.

These are the options that have been proposed and, as they say,

we should use a soft ranking vote to determine the appropriate platform.

Thank you very much.

Please.

A colleague from the faction noted that the faction

holds that view.

I believe that making ourselves dependent on Democracy,

is, at the very least, premature.

And to believe the owners, that Yuri is now really in charge,

and that this is the platform’s slogan — and then for us, as

usual,

this is a very serious

owner, and it belongs to Zuckerberg.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Let us move to a ranking vote.

I would simply like to note once again that the Democracy system

under certain conditions

gives us the opportunity to display our voting openly.

Absolutely everything

can be done in closed mode

or made visible as needed.

The technical capabilities for that do exist.

We can simply use the voters’ cards.

The voters, as an exception, intentionally gave us — but the real possibility

to show the vote can be provided in Alexei Navalny’s LiveJournal blog.

We voted,

decided to show it, print it, perhaps show how these people voted.

Accordingly, on the TV channel.

And most interestingly, we will be voting.

We can use the platform where we have all already gathered,

even if there are not yet 30 people.

Like the Americans.

Alexander,

Vote.

And not giving our own assessment of the voting options — is it risky to put it to a vote or not allow

the vote?

A question from Oleg Lazarev on procedure.

Very briefly, I would suggest perhaps

having two types of voting: to choose the main platform, say,

Democracy, and a backup option, and accordingly there are many possibilities.

It is written in the official statement on the official website.

One can go to the website precisely for that,

and then the discussion can continue anywhere that is convenient for colleagues.

Hold an indicative vote.

Yes, if Democracy has officially published 2 million

all members, in order to inform you,

you, in principle, regarding the conduct of parliamentary proceedings.

A proposal was made

to disclose information about

who owns the platform.

It is believed that this is not a panacea.

As for the Democracy-2 platform, let me speak very briefly about the platform.

Reference information about the platform.

Regarding the Democracy-2 platform,

there is a legal entity there, a formal structure, and the domain is already owned.

I am physically ready.

I know it very well; I can control that block.

We have a supervisory board. There.

That is, de facto, as of now, the Democracy platform is in Vladimir.

Let me comment on that, because it is clear that Facebook is cooler,

but the difference between Facebook and Democracy is that Democracy

can be adapted to the specific needs of the Coordinating Council.

For example, the types of procedural voting that are available on the site, and so on.

And secondly, the voters are there.

Once again, those voters who completed the registration procedure,

received their credentials within three days, after three days,

with which they voted in the elections

to the Coordinating Council, will be able to take part in the voting.

So it is indeed possible, through this platform, to reach out to them.

For reference, I fully agree, because only on issues

of a referendum type, not on procedural

matters, should the internet be used to ask for a yes-or-no opinion on fundamental questions.

But for now, colleagues, thank you very much.

An indicative vote is not dogma.

We will always be able to vote again at any time and choose another platform,

and our editorial group can take part in the indicative vote.

We are opening an indicative vote on

which official platforms for discussion and information to choose.

Democracy has been proposed; please vote.

Ah, excuse me, please — first the full list should be announced.

So far, the names mentioned were Democracy-2 and, in three statements, others.

VINOKUROV

One is Navalny’s, mentioned in some publications, publications.

So, once again.

Who is in favor of making the official platform for information and discussion

Democracy?

I ask you to vote on behalf of 200,000 people.

Thank you to everyone who is reading.

Oleg Kashin helped the volunteers count.

I am counting.

We have.

23,318.

Please, those in favor, raise your hand and keep it up for a moment.

It is easier for you to count from there. There.

Here, here.

What is it?

I count 22 to 23 votes in support.

This is an indicative vote.

And on the rules of procedure, from Olesya.

Andreeva.

Please don't get distracted, keep order,

so that the coordinating commission can hear the proposal.

And we are holding an indicative vote, a more or less indicative one,

alternatively discussing whether Facebook or Democracy-2 should be chosen

as the official platform for informing council members

and for conducting votes.

We've already discussed that.

Then let's once again take an indicative vote on who is in favor of making this indicative.

Then it will be proposed to choose Democracy-2 once again.

So, for one or the other.

Democracy-2 is chosen — Democracy, yes,

Facebook — to be counted

accordingly.

We have 12.

Yours are writing it down.

And for Facebook — those in favor of officially choosing Facebook as stated in the heading

one, two, three, four — four people.

Well, colleagues, in our indicative vote

the question is: who is in favor of choosing?

The official system as the official platform for informing members of the Coordinating Council

and for conducting votes of Coordinating Council members on various issues.

Please vote for the Democracy-2 system; please count the votes.

And we can,

we can separate this point regarding the opposing options.

We will now hold an official vote.

24, 24 requests.

One, two, three,

four, and five against; abstentions?

Three, four, five — five.

So it was supported. Thank you.

Adopted.

So, now we have a platform.

Returning to the question of the rules of procedure, we now understand

where to discuss them.

I propose the following solution.

All draft rules of procedure are to be published.

On Democracy-2.

Anyone preparing a draft of the rules of procedure publishes it there,

they are discussed there, and if necessary

indicative votes are held on all issues.

On key ones, and so on.

All this is done so that, when it is ready,

sooner or later, we do not come to a halt.

And this decision would then be submitted

to a meeting of the Coordinating Council for a formal decision.

Is the draft decision clear?

And if I understood you correctly, Alexei,

my proposal is still to set a deadline for the draft rules of procedure,

as I said, November 1, but not indefinitely.

The draft does need to be prepared.

Oleg Nikolaevich, as an exception.

In that case, it needs to be decided at the next meeting.

Maybe that...

It will be at the time when we are saying

that we are not ready to discuss it.

And the second decision, so that it can be obtained

on this occasion.

Thanks to Oleg Bondarenko.

Very brief.

Please take the nationalist factor into account,

because the Russian March (an annual nationalist demonstration in Russia) is taking place now and is really centered around

the discussion of adopting the rules of procedure, after which

the option without a deadline was chosen and passed.

Colleagues, the following proposal has been made: to hold the discussion

without any deadline and adopt it at the

meeting of the Coordinating Council once it is ready.

And our colleague Udaltsov has proposed setting a deadline, on what date.

I propose that the first draft of the rules of procedure be ready by

November 1.

I put to a vote by 12

three proposals, including, of course, by November 1.

There is also a proposal for November 15.

Strictly speaking, then, the first and main option is

say, one week before the first meeting of the Coordinating Council.

Importantly, I simply said that my proposal was one week

from the first day, so that we

would have it in Moscow very...

And today we are live with the real thing.

A proposal with no deadline at all.

When will it be ready?

The next proposal is by the first in-person meeting

one week, one week before the first, before the next meeting.

The proposal is by November 1.

The proposal is to set it for November 15.

Therefore, that is not possible.

Sergei, are you not ready to reach a compromise

on the 15th, when at the next meeting

a decision is made that next year will be

November 22.

Thus, the proposal

will go forward.

That is roughly the situation.

First of all, don't speak without a microphone.

I propose the following option.

In any case, we have temporary rules of procedure that can, as it were,

function somehow.

Let's once again review all four options in advance without agreeing

without a deadline, adopting it at the meeting when we are ready.

Second, to prepare it one week before the next

in-person meeting of the Coordinating Council, the date of which has not been determined.

The next proposal is by November 1,

and another proposal is by November 15.

And I ask you to vote.

You may vote for any number of options.

No, not just one — for any number of options.

The vote itself will proceed in the order the proposals were made.

Who is in favor of

conducting all these procedures on Democracy-2

coordinating everything, discussing it, and submitting it to the meeting of the

Coordinating Council without setting a deadline?

Please vote accordingly.

Please help.

Just for you

three people out of six, seven, eight, and minutes

10 in favor — the decision did not pass.

Well then, who is in favor of approving and carrying out these procedures

one week before the next in-person meeting of the Coordinating Council,

you may vote for any number of options.

12. I can only see

20, 25.

The decision is adopted.

I insist — this is my personal request,

if there are more votes than the two of us have,

nevertheless voted

in favor of setting the deadline as November 1, then those in favor

one, two, three.

Thank you.

And who is in favor of making the decision

by November 15?

Two, three, four, five

six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven. This motion has not passed.

Thus, we

will hold a discussion on the draft rules of procedure,

introduce various amendments, and so on.

Under the Democracy-2 system, this process must be completed one week

before the next in-person meeting of the Coordinating Council.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

And I give the floor to our traditional group.

They have also prepared the technical equipment.

All right, let us see what other important issues there are regarding.

Terrorism.

We actually have an excellent team.

Meeting.

Colleagues said until the end.

I will do it.

The central issue is the president.

I have two proposals.

First, on behalf of the Coordinating Council, we

should express our gratitude.

Yes, indeed, there is an entire system of relationships

of who reports to whom, who gives orders to whom and who does not.

Full judicial independence. Next proposal.

You see, the proposal is to work this out.

Still, I... according to the rules, after all, it was.

I would once again like to draw the attention of our esteemed colleagues

to the fact that this expression of gratitude is connected with how exactly this began to be implemented.

We have not yet made that decision.

The gratitude, I repeat once again, is for organizing the first in the history of

our country.

We expressed

gratitude and thanks, but,

I hope, gratitude as well... Please suggest how we should

arrange this.

Thank you.

We should have turned to the actual work.

Perhaps, despite the many complaints about the elections,

I would still like to thank them all personally. Please, we are glad.

He himself just said it: why should we take part in this compromise of ours?

We propose developing a system for permanent work

and working out a framework for our possible formal relations.

Who is in favor of such a decision?

Thank you.

Against?

Abstained?

The decision is adopted.

The last decision we need to make under the rules of procedure is this.

It concerns appointing an acting executive secretary,

who will prepare the next meeting.

Garry, very briefly on this issue.

We really have no time left for this,

we have

very little time, but nevertheless we must ensure that

what has been scheduled is properly organized.

There are two issues.

First, there has been regular talk of resignation,

and that implies some kind of response.

I already started writing, but

at the suggestion of those who dealt with this before, I developed a more

or less... even.

And now we are being urged, especially

after

the brainless Olympics.

Into one place

it is proposed that someone take this on.

That is, we were offered a certain number of people today for the role of responsible secretary,

because the person responsible for the association,

for fundraising, simply in order

to understand what is involved—and to hear everyone out, I think, takes time.

By Friday there is the procedural framework

for timing, and until the end of the year I propose

to appoint

an election date.

He was one of the candidates, and we are now being asked to

make use of the capacities

of the possible candidates who took part.

Here is Dmitry Nekrasov

the proposal is to make him responsible until the end of the year for

alternative personnel matters, before

alternative staffing proposals,

and specifically to prepare the rules of procedure by the end of the year, I believe,

by the end of the year, until the main rules are adopted, until the adoption of

the new rules of procedure, which

Dmitry Nekrasov was prepared to do.

NEKRASOV, very briefly.

to name a normal mode.

I think, extremely briefly.

I took part in the elections, I have seen how it works, and I have business experience

as a company manager,

as an owner; I also have some business of my own

and about three years of experience in public service.

That is, generally speaking, even the most liberal system

needs bureaucracy, and I am ready to be that bureaucracy for

this council.

Well, I promise that at least by the next

meeting there will still be

two microphones, at the very least; I promise you that, and a main room.

In due time.

Do you really want to... I suspect,

and until the end of the year I am ready, however you like,

to deal with the Presidential Administration and the administrative apparatus for managing

the dialogue.

Please, I can say very briefly

that by the next meeting it is possible

to adopt it by the end of the year.

Kasparov, and colleagues, well, in order to adopt the rules, the rules,

a conclusion that has been issued is needed.

However, if there is urgent information,

for me to appoint you, then

I would have to appoint half of the members of the Coordinating Council.

I cannot

May Vinokurov make a brief remark?

A brief remark to Yashin.

to my colleague.

It seems to me that it would be right to elect as executive secretary

someone who is not a member of the political council, because

possibly,

because it would be wrong

to combine political posts with administrative functions.

That gives excessive powers

to the member of the Coordinating Council who receives those functions.

He then becomes first among equals, which is wrong.

And in practice, when we appoint to this position someone who does not attend

every meeting of the council, then in essence he becomes stronger than the bureaucracy that

works under this very Coordinating Council.

Therefore, I propose that we refrain for now and reach an agreement

by the calendar date.

In principle, if

if I, as a member of the CC, had assumed that this would now be discussed

the question of a secretary who is not a member of the CC,

I would have had time to think and propose some other candidates.

I do not understand, excuse me,

why this apparently has turned into a discussion of old matters.

Meanwhile, I was not aware of this story on Facebook.

and this story will now be tied to this date

and sold to us as ready-made decisions.

If necessary, we can take a minute, vote on Facebook, step away, and think.

And other candidates, if they are not from the CC, could perform this function,

rather than choosing without any alternative for the second or third time.

Right now we will become like so many others, and I would not even chair the meeting.

And suddenly.

I propose electing a temporary secretary

from among our colleagues on the Coordinating Council.

After the rules of procedure are adopted, a press secretary will be needed.

I see an alternative, namely the following:

until the next meeting we appoint a secretary, or until the end of the year, and so on.

We have two personnel alternatives.

I am putting this to a ranked vote, with as many rounds of voting as needed,

but specifically on electing

the secretary of the Coordinating Council.

Until the next meeting of the Coordinating Council

I ask you to vote in favor.

This important issue,

please support it until the rules of procedure are adopted.

Good evening, Ivan.

I understand, excuse me, one, two, three, four, five

six, seven, zero, three

please count the ranked vote.

Hello.

ALEXEI

24 20

the microphones will be handed out by you.

And 3003333.

Who is in favor in practice?

One, two,

two, two. A decision has been made: we elect a secretary until the rules of procedure are adopted.

We have two personnel alternatives.

Please note, there was a proposal to choose either from within the council or from outside it.

I would vote. But first, a question.

That is, if by any chance we can find three days

to propose a candidate and vote electronically, as things have developed,

and to me

it seems wrong to vote in a way that changes the composition of the council.

It is possible to vote for any person at

a certain

stage of the voting.

We were voting on personnel matters.

Either for changes, or for postponing the issue and not electing anyone, colleagues.

We do, after all, have the final say now, since we made the decision

until the rules of procedure are approved, but we will revisit this issue fairly soon.

That is why I proposed making a choice after all: two alternatives.

This is simply completely logical.

There are two candidates, so let us discuss them.

I expressed my personal opinion regarding the ranked vote

in the order received

namely, in favor of approving as secretary

until the next meeting, or until the rules of procedure are adopted, Dmitry Nekrasov.

Excuse me. In favor.

Rules of procedure

once. The main point

here once, the chair eight times, and

12 times, 16 times, 18, 18, and, in my view,

almost 37 members of the CC voted

to approve it in this way.

Alexander

that is in fact possible.

Three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

And here it is 10, 12, 13, 13.

We are speaking of a formal

majority of votes

one vote; this decision is now for the decision,

namely, to adopt and approve as secretary

our colleague Nekrasov from the next meeting

I ask you to vote.

We now have exactly five, six, seven, eight

nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,

20, 20, 21.

The decision is adopted. Nekrasov has been elected on an interim basis.

In the first vote, on the basis of the voting results.

In our case, the decision was not adopted; it fell short by two or three votes.

First, I proposed that this issue be put to a repeat vote and

that our colleagues understand that if we do not make a decision,

then we will be left without a secretary, accordingly, and that would be,

in my view, very wrong.

Therefore, I propose putting this issue to a vote once again.

It seems to me that some colleagues

will vote for it, but the majority will not.

We must address procedural issues.

I had to

with you.

Nekrasov will carry out this work on a voluntary, voluntary

voluntary basis.

Alexander

This is the most formal announcement in this case.

But he himself ran for the CC and has already taken part in this vote.

It was discussed, but he was not invited.

Once again, it seems to me, well, I do not know, he invited me,

but did not allow it.

In this case, I nominated the candidate.

Mr. Kasparov, understood.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Under the temporary rules of procedure, I am required to be.

Vadim Nekrasov. Decision.

Nekrasov, I do not ask.

But we cannot leave here without an executive secretary.

So, we are going to vote now.

For now, it is unlawful.

NEKRASOV. I apologize for putting pressure on the Coordinating Council.

Nevertheless, you have begun preparing the next meeting.

Andrei Filatov

There is no time left at all.

Another important issue in the context of the chair's proposal.

Who called about the press secretary, to consider the situation.

Indeed, teams, in

according to which a decision on the agenda is made by

the governing body by three votes

which may have eliminated some of the drawbacks.

The problem now is

however, with this vote.

The problem going forward is that many items are on the agenda.

It will be necessary.

To adopt.

Decisions by a majority of the forum currently in session.

During the meeting.

Colleagues, what do you think about

my proposal to elect an executive secretary?

Oleg Vinokurov. From Nekrasov, of course.

Vinokurov and Nekrasov did not object to this.

I will not, of my own free will, push through the election of the person responsible

not one member of the Coordinating Council, it seems to me,

will allow it.

Nekrasov does not object. VINOKUROV

As for putting the second one to a vote, of course I object for exactly the same reasons.

I consider the combination of administrative and political functions unacceptable.

It is simply unacceptable.

Therefore, I am categorically against putting it to a vote.

At the same time, the question was raised

this is, in principle, not a vote,

this is a temporary decision, and later

we will have to decide.

It seems to me.

From among the members.

We can finish in five minutes.

Excuse me, just very briefly, the microphone,

I will simply point out the logic once again.

By the way, besides the proposal for

early action, I also proposed another option regarding the outcome.

When you yourself do not want to deal with

financial matters, that means it is a very important responsibility.

Money has to be spent.

Mikhail Prokhorov

It would have been strange for us to remove ourselves from issues that concern us.

This is in the format of a question,

the issue of direct personal financing.

He finances friends.

My advice.

People who could

who could be responsible for finances over the next year

need to work there and understand this.

I am ending the discussion and putting the following question to a vote:

whether to elect a temporary executive secretary

for the SCR: Vinokurov and Nekrasov.

All those in favor of this decision, please vote.

Two of us: 66, 70.

Nine, 10 and 12, 14, 16, 17, 26.

29, 29:00.

The decision has been adopted over the last two days.

I am putting the decision to a vote without discussion.

Excuse me, who is in favor of forming

a temporary budget group for the next meeting of the body?

Perhaps he cannot now, since Ashurkov is our secretary.

ROMANOV: As for Nemtsov, there are actually no further proposals.

The task is for it to seek out and find money for you

and to resolve the issue in due time, as always.

We paid 100,000 rubles for this venue.

I paid CBK more than 100,000 rubles.

No, well, there has to be a maximum.

Therefore, I am simply putting it to a vote.

On forming a temporary budget, a draft to be drawn up afterward.

An addition as well, and a couple more to include.

Now we can no longer do without it.

Oleg Romanovich.

NEMTSOVA: Roman, tomorrow, according to the draft law,

it will be adopted; against; abstained.

Adopted. Thank you very much.

I give the floor.

Who is ready to speak on behalf of the organizing committee?

And from Filippov?

The question is not connected in any way with

The matter of the action will come much later, at the very end.

Please, Sergei, very briefly.

And we are voting. Overall, it is absolutely obvious.

That the point.

About the amendment you are talking about.

None at all.

No changes have been made.

That is, honestly, it is just a matter of replacing synonyms and so on.

And then the word order.

Thank you.

Your group came to this consensus; we came to a consensus

Now from you personally.

I want to speak to this rule, which.

In the end.

Dear colleagues,

we cannot adopt a decision on the basis of a text

when we do not have the final text before our eyes.

But it is obvious that the text of the document must be fully

in my view.

Sergei, very quickly, please read out to us

the text of the statement in the part where changes were made to the overall text.

There is a statement against political repression.

I support the statement of the Opposition Coordinating Council.

An appeal by members of the Opposition Coordinating Council was published earlier.

At its first meeting, the following statement is adopted:

The beginning of Vladimir Putin's new term has been marked by a sharp intensification of

political repression,

and by a refusal of a significant part of Russian society to recognize its legitimacy.

Mass protest actions by citizens have frightened those in power.

To justifiable.

Justified outrage is being answered with force.

The persecution of opposition supporters and dissenters

in Russia is taking on a large-scale character,

forcing us to speak of the ruling regime's transition to a policy of open terror.

Law-enforcement

positions.

At the forefront of the struggle against the regime's opponents has emerged the Main Directorate

of the Central.

On May 5, the police

dispersed a demonstration on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow.

Hundreds of protesters.

Are coming to.

Mass protests were sent. On.

A new stage of persecution.

And a video of dubious origin aired on NTV

was for the first time used as a pretext for new arrests

of political activists.

In Ukraine, with complete disregard for

the law, he was abducted and then illegally brought to Moscow

Leonid Razvozzhayev, a member of the Left Front and of the Opposition Coordinating Council.

After a closed court hearing,

without informing his lawyers or family members, he was remanded in custody.

According to human rights advocates

from the Public Monitoring Commission, who managed to secure a visit with him,

it became known that security service officers, through torture and psychological pressure

and threats, extracted testimony from Razvozzhayev incriminating his comrades.

It is also known that Markin, a representative of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, publicly

lied when he stated that Razvozzhayev had turned himself in voluntarily.

Later

he retracted his confession.

Cases of physical and psychological torture, intimidation, and abuse

have become a widespread and systematic phenomenon in relation to the opposition today.

Were.

Under all

of this kind.

of the Council are currently being subjected to unlawful criminal prosecution.

Daniil Konstantinov is an active participant in protest actions and a member of the Opposition Coordination Council.

He was arrested on March 2 on a false murder charge and remains to this day

in pre-trial detention.

He became one of the first victims of this repressive campaign.

Gazaryan is an environmental activist from Krasnodar and a member of the Coordination Council.

He was convicted on an unlawful charge of damaging a fence.

Governor Tkachev

brought charges on all counts.

As

a defendant in the mass riots case.

Alexei Navalny is being unlawfully subjected to criminal prosecution,

on the basis of a fabricated case.

Konstantin, a member of the Coordination Council.

Under the article on incitement of hatred.

A new chapter

in the chronicle of repression against opponents of the authorities was the so-called Bolotnaya case.

Bolotnaya.

Akimenkov, Andrei; Barabanov, Fyodor; Bakhov,

Yaroslav; Belousov, Nikolai; Kavkazsky, Leonid; Kovyazin, Mikhail,

Viktor Yanukovych.

Besides them.

Dukhanina and Rybachenko.

This is a picture of unlawful

political repression.

of the very recent period.

In this connection.

which has led to renewed pressure on its opponents?

in gross violation of Russian and international law?

They demand that the country's leadership

put an end to the practice of pressuring opposition supporters.

A fabricated

case has been opened, and a member of the movement has been arrested

appeals to the Russian public to actively

take part in the campaign.

And politics.

The protest of the international community

and calls to show solidarity against political repression.

The Coordination Council will seek the adoption of international sanctions, including

the introduction of visa restrictions and the freezing of assets of all persons

including those involved in the unlawful prosecution

on political grounds, and reminds

officials, military personnel, law enforcement officers,

and members of the judicial system

of the inevitability of punishment for crimes against Russian citizens.

Thank you to everyone who supported and adopted

this overall position in our vote.

Thank you.

The statement is adopted.

Sergei Udaltsov, 40 seconds for a response.

The question of

is part of the working agenda.

Please, the microphone.

Belarus.

Thank you.

Friends.

This is not what people are waiting for under the rules.

I think this is the last thing the public expects from us.

They expect concrete decisions on concrete actions.

A question remains from the opposition organizing committee that operated before the Coordination Council was elected,

and we need to resolve it.

I believe we need to decide today and start preparing.

That is, at the end of the year we need to hold a new opposition march,

timed to coincide with the anniversary of the start of those rallies

For Fair Elections, which began in 2011.

And most importantly, this will be the best defense of our political prisoners,

if we do manage to bring a lot of people together at the end of the year.

People from the regions are ready to come.

If all we do is deal with procedural rules, then, excuse me,

half the members of the Coordination Council will soon walk away from this.

So there is a concrete proposal, and I suggest adopting it today,

because the date of the next meeting is unknown.

Every day counts here.

For early December, when the anniversary of the start of these events falls,

specifically for Saturday, December 8.

It would be convenient for the regions to schedule a new opposition march.

We can discuss the theme later.

Clearly, the main theme will be defending prisoners and preventing repression.

And everyone should start preparing today, because if we do not

mark the end of the year with some major action on our part,

then, excuse me, what is the point of keeping all this at the level of talk?

We all know how to talk, that's obvious.

So the proposal is to make a decision today,

and then move on to the preparations.

Thank you. Colleague Yashin, colleague Bondarik, colleague Katz.

Thirty seconds under the rules, no more.

Colleagues, there may be different points of view here.

There is a sense that perhaps we have been holding protest actions

a bit too often, and people are already somewhat tired.

There is a sense that in December the number of people who come out may be

somewhat smaller than at the previous protest.

In any case.

This is a complicated issue and requires a full discussion.

It is difficult to decide it in this format.

Therefore, I suggest postponing it until the next meeting,

holding a full discussion and only after that making a decision

on whether to hold this action or not.

Colleague Bondarik, if we don't want to derail the event, let's postpone

it and hold consultations.

Others believe, of course, that we need to decide on mass actions today.

I would like to add to this proposal.

We need to announce a kind of total mobilization of regional activists.

They could consider the financial issue of chartering buses from the regions,

at least partially, for example as was done in St. Petersburg.

We decided that we would form a column and raise money.

This is very important, because people come here in the morning

on Saturday, are immediately loaded up with stacks of leaflets, and stationed by the metro.

That encourages people to come.

Especially since it will come after the Russian March, so momentum will build as well.

Thank you.

Katz, Pivovarov, we...

In fact, I did not want to push for holding it.

If not, then I propose immediately removing this

issue from the current agenda due to lack of time and placing

these questions quite

properly.

Otherwise, I will simply leave this format.

A remark

please pass to colleague Oleg.

I just need literally one more second.

Sergei Maksimov, so,

Mutual respect is fundamental.

It is a clause in our rules of procedure.

If that is missing, nothing will work.

That is why I urge everyone: speak as harshly as you like, but...

Thank you.

LARIONOV. The rules of procedure, Mr. Margelov,

it is stated very briefly that people were to coordinate with the regions.

That is, I would take some time to coordinate

this event with the regions and would not bring it forward so abruptly.

There is no time to deal with the regions.

And then there will be their decision after Valdai.

Please.

ILLARIONOV. Nikolai Konstantinovich.

did not vote, because...

The vote is the last item.

A question. Maxim, I cannot put the matter of removal to a vote.

First of all, I simply mean that this is on our agenda.

Please, dear colleagues, we need to make a decision today

about the timing of the next meeting of the Coordinating Council.

If we are to make a decision on it today,

if we cannot decide how exactly that decision will be made.

The next one is clear.

There is such a proposal from Udaltsov.

And the proposal is that we should now prepare to discuss this issue.

And at the next meeting of the Coordinating Council—thank you—hold that discussion.

Thank you.

O. DAVIDIS. Nikolai Konstantinovich.

Very briefly.

Navalny supports this on his side.

Sergei Udaltsov. First of all,

Let me remind you, we are carrying out an action, the opposition's first action

I want to state

that thanks to the people who, among other things, organized today,

the situation is different.

Thank you very much. We are grateful to them.

At the same time, there are placards for all members of the Council,

they are all Council members, because...

DAVIDIS. Briefly, very briefly, and I will just add this.

Such a major blow.

We decided to support actions in support of political prisoners.

On October 30 in Moscow, a rally in support of political prisoners will take place at Pushkinskaya Square.

It will begin at 7:00 p.m.

Sergei Udaltsov: Yes, this is also a public event.

I just want to clarify: that our

only at the invitation of Udaltsov, Yashin,

Nikolai Konstantinovich.

Sergei is absolutely right.

We have not paperwork, but concrete action to do.

Holding another major protest action is in fact dedicated

to those events that led to fairly

mass political repression.

It simply cannot be otherwise; I fully and completely support it.

Thank you, Konstantin Fyodorovich.

Dear colleagues,

I suggest we not forget the main thing:

the elections to the Coordinating Council and the very existence of the Coordinating Council

became possible only because mass street protests began.

If it were not for those actions, we would not be sitting here together.

Therefore, I believe it is absolutely essential

to vote on Sergei Udaltsov's proposal.

A major action needs time to build momentum, it needs time.

Later, the location, conditions, and timing can be adjusted.

But I ask that the decision in principle be made today.

Thank you. Thank you.

CHIRIKOVA. Chirikova is ready.

Dolgikh and Krylov.

Regarding mass actions.

I am delighted by mass actions.

I really love them, but we look pathetic when we gather

an insufficient number of people.

So before announcing one, I would ask on Facebook or anywhere else

who is actually ready in December, in the rain

and so on, to keep coming out and fighting—and only then set a date.

Although, Seryozha, with all due respect, I adore Moscow—thank you.

And a brief point about cooperation.

I really liked what just happened

between the members of the Coordinating Council.

Learn from the crooks and thieves (a common opposition slogan about the authorities) how to unite and work in coordination.

Thank you

for that.

Colleagues, this is very difficult.

On the other hand, there has been a crackdown, and there are fewer people.

On the other hand, only street actions in the regions

are how people learn

that this movement exists; as I see it, that happens only thanks to public events.

So I am still inclined to think that we need to hold it now.

Our task is to mobilize people so that more come out than before.

Thank you. But...

I think our situation now is as follows.

In principle, the proposal that was made

was made with great enthusiasm and deserves discussion.

We cannot do that right now.

Therefore, I propose that we decide the issue in principle—that in December

something will be held, vote on that now, and postpone everything else

until the next meeting, making sure to include

it on the list of items for discussion. Thank you.

So it turns out that I, perhaps, also have a question on

a very brief point.

The action should be held tomorrow.

Let's discuss it next Saturday.

Thank you.

So, the last speech in this process has concluded.

For now, there is a letter from Nikolai Svanidze regarding finances and the reasoning.

It would be rather strange, after all, not to mark the anniversary of the events.

Thanks to

it has gone unnoticed in many ways.

I do not know; in effect, we have two proposals: to set

the date of the action for the eighth

and the proposal

today.

Well, look, it is either that we set it for the eighth

right now, Mikhail, or there is another alternative proposal.

Therefore, Yashin proposes declaring the intention

to hold an action and giving time to determine its format and

to formulate...

Mikhail, a compromise.

To declare the intention to hold an action dedicated to the anniversary

of the events.

Information.

Carte blanche.

Excuse me, please, just a moment.

I simply propose

that, without setting an exact date, we formulate it this way:

an action dedicated to the anniversary

of the events in our...

But there is one version of the decision, as everyone...

we declare our intention to hold an action

and will work out the format of this action.

the venue there, the arrangements, and so on.

No objections.

Because.

On the anniversary

of the start of the mass protests over election fraud

in the State Duma, no objections? No.

Please put my wording to a vote.

December 8; postponing it would mean sabotaging the action.

Guys, let's be honest.

Let's also discuss the order in which proposals were submitted.

about resolving Sergei Udaltsov's issue.

Firmly set for the 8th. Who's in favor?

Guys, support it—who actually wants to get things done?

Very, very few.

This is completely unacceptable.

Lately, when we vote—and it doesn't matter whether there are

comments from Nikishin, Nekrasov, and Udaltsov.

Please support it once again—those who signed up to speak briefly.

If your point is that the same option is being repeated, that's not the issue.

Understood. Understood.

We intend to hold an action dedicated to the anniversary

of the protest movement. Your forecast?

Yes, we held an action; there is a format, there is our president's working group.

We ask people to support such a decision.

I suggest, please, once again

seven, ten, twenty.

Two, twenty-two.

Wait a moment, once again.

I'll present it once again.

Six, seven, eight, ten, eleven, twelve,

sixteen. twenty.

Many thanks to everyone.

We are concluding our meeting.

Information from Sergei PARKHOMENKO regarding what exactly we are now

going to do, how, and so on.

Please, Sergei Sobyanin, call us, please, and we'll see.

Please.

It was widely announced that an action would begin at 3:00 p.m.,

directed against repression.

It starts from the FSB building.

We do not know what is happening there.

That's enough.

I propose that everyone now

head over there next.

The question

is this.

The organizers, on their own initiative, are beginning,

to form chains,

and that is illegal along the route.

That is, along Moiseenko Street, Pokrovka,

Staraya Basmannaya, and then suddenly they

along this

it turns into this kind of march to Lubyanka.

Both.

And that's good.

How does it look to you?

What we are seeing now, right now, is Lubyanka

in the very hall of the FSB directorate, in the metro

and writers' walks along

there is a significant number of printouts

that I have noticed as well, apparently.

There are also now posters that say, "I am against repression."

They are made

in different versions; when they run out, then we need to

head

to wherever one can get on the metro,

can go there now.

Vladimir.

So the question is as follows.

Let's now hear from Sergei PARKHOMENKO.

There is a question.

We all understand what we are doing now, but what place does the FSB have in this?

In the board?

That on this question

there is no answer.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, wait a second.

We are setting the date of the next meeting.

I propose that we decide that our executive secretary,

but for now, taking into account consultations with

the council members, with

and taking into account the funds available, will determine the options and put them to a vote.

In a democracy, everything is decided together; the next step is to schedule

something fixed right now is impossible, because we know nothing about the money, the venue, or anything else.

I put it to a vote: who wants

them, in working order,

to decide this in coordination with us?

Within two weeks, a decision will be made on holding such an event.

Democracy is democracy.

Two. We are voting for such a decision. Submit it.

Thank you.

Against? Abstentions?

Yashin abstained.

Colleagues, I thank you all.

Thank you very much.

Hello.

We are broadcasting live

from Slavyanskaya Square, where an opposition rally is taking place and where members have arrived

of the Opposition Coordination Council.

They are walking now.

Are you surprised by the editor-in-chief's courage?

Therefore

look, I want to pause on this once again.

I will simply ask whether

this event falls under the legal definition of a march

addressed to,

and not to call on anyone to take part in the march, not to participate in it personally, and to disperse,

because this event's route and purpose

coincide 100%

with a march, and we will be obliged

to detain citizens.

I am also telling you the list of these cameras.

I intend to take part in solo pickets with a single placard.

I will not stand closer than 50 meters to anyone else.

And I ask you to walk with me

and make sure that no one walks with me as part of a march.

I repeat once again that so far

in the federal law's provisions on a set of pickets united

by a single purpose, taken together, if I am not mistaken, even

on the internet there was a call precisely to do it this way

along this route.

I want to sit for a while myself.

I urge you

ahead of the upcoming parliamentary elections.

To the right, to the left. Think about it.

Having taken your places, having arrived,

although it is possible—perhaps, it seems to me, you have interpreted the law incorrectly.

I declare only one thing: that I plan to take part.

in 91 of all the marches.

I have a placard.

Federal law.

it is a set of pickets with one purpose—I should be shot.

A picket was taking place, without a doubt.

And I can, I can take part.

A solo picket in itself, one person, is not connected with

here I am standing in a solo picket. May I explain now?

A solo picket here, I am

detained.

Question ten, I cannot speak.

A solo picket with a single purpose may be regarded by the court

as participation in it, which is also illegal.

I am speaking specifically about myself: I will not do it again,

because I am not calling on anyone to call for this.

You may be detained, if that is what you think,

and if the circumstances develop in such a way that there is an opportunity.

A picket for the record.

I am not calling on anyone present here to take part in the march.

Some kind of legal order is being violated.

I am standing here on my own.

I will show you everything.

Let me, please let me pass

and take part in my separate solo picket.

Everyone can be released. Freedom

Can you even imagine it yourselves?

Tell me, do we agree with each other?

You can unfold the sheet of paper

then some kind of further...

An action as such.

I did not catch it, as I understood it,

Navalny.

Will you go?

We went there.

We will stand 50 meters away at the pedestrian crossing.

We propose

the road.

They accommodated us.

Then

in the city, thank God.

May I continue?

Here one can

say a few words in assessment.

I assess them as obviously unlawful, and they

from the outset are obviously fabricated.

Most of you.

Here is the report that...

I have already posted,

in particular,

there is obvious fabrication.

Unfortunately,

there is still more on this matter.

And Krylov was detained; he was there too

la la

at the march.

Well done.

Ilya, come on, come on.

Here, la

to begin with.

Possibly.

A little

the state.

They are arguing, arguing. La.

At home they say

You are not coping with yourselves.

Now, by the way, besides the bank fines, I also have an absolutely

fabricated accusation that I allegedly organized a march, which many did not see.

There were solo pickets, peaceful and calm.

I am also threatened with the possibility of a change in the preventive measure

in the criminal case, if the court finds me guilty.

And I am currently under a travel restriction.

In this case, it is being processed.

Excuse me, I could be arrested on the spot.

So we will fight.

And when my court hearing is on October 30, perhaps you should come.

And for now, the main thing has been achieved, comrades.

And we continue our

broadcast.

GASKAROV. Today our

dissenting person is Vsevolod.

Molodtsov.

Everyone says you were detained for violating

the rules; solo picketing

is that. Nothing more than

not forming anyone.

On the one hand,

you were lucky.