The Second Meeting of the Opposition Coordination Council

In accordance with.

In accordance with the decision we adopted earlier, we must first of all

elect the chair of our meeting,

since we agreed that we have

a principle of rotation.

At the moment,

as far as I know, our colleague Illarionova has nominated

our colleague Kasparov as chair of this meeting.

Any other nominations?

None.

I would like to nominate

our colleague Pakhomenko.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I expected

more.

First.

The very.

I am simply withdrawing my candidacy.

It seems to me that since we have not yet determined the rules of procedure

or the procedure, the most natural thing

would be this.

A person

practically. From. The floor.

I would raise the question, and that is why I am ready to serve as

chair of this meeting. He.

Considers.

Kasparov. Kasparov.

If you suspect that, then so do I.

Kasparov—three. Very briefly.

This is Gelfand's.

This is PAKHOMENKO's.

I am explaining to you how that is possible.

I would be interested to see how

the vote went.

Colleagues, nominations have been put forward.

Colleague Kasparov. Any others?

If not, then in the order received, please vote.

Who is in favor of Garry Kasparov chairing this meeting?

Please vote.

Dear friends!

Today we have

the opportunity, of course.

The first item on the agenda.

In fact, there are three of them.

And what. There will be defeats.

On the matter?

Why are they all like this?

They are all the same, because they do not really change much.

Only the order changes here.

Of how

all these

issues.

Because, essentially, this is the question we are

beginning to consider.

The issue of the march,

our protests, the December action.

I have a proposal to adopt

It seems to me that we should

give our voters the satisfaction of a concrete decision.

Then we can delve into procedural and motivational issues.

That is why I am, of course, proposing option number one, where everything

That is, the issue of protest actions.

Against.

Any others?

That is clear.

So you can?

Object?

The picture is authentic.

I. Even

if it already has.

All right.

What I.

No, I propose

to remove it.

The provision.

Here I am.

I was taking, that is, I was

discussing the draft statement.

Decision.

That the discussion among members of the

Coordination Council on this issue has already flared up,

taking on an unhealthy, harmful, and dangerous character.

Therefore, I propose

given the emotional atmosphere that has formed around this issue,

that we impose a moratorium on discussing

this matter and

I believe that this is quite a different structure,

one that may be exposed to a whole range of dangers.

The main threat is the obvious futility of

civil and political activists.

And a split—which we have gone through many times—arises each time out of nowhere.

Right now, it seems to me, the proposed resolution will most likely

create contradiction rather than lead to

our reaching a mutual understanding on this matter.

I understand that we have all read

about world revolution, and we all understand that first we need to divide,

so that later we can unite.

It has become customary for us every week,

Therefore, I propose a moratorium within the agenda.

I have

an appeal,

that the voters.

of the Revolutionary Council

and an undefined range of tasks.

In defense, undoubtedly, perhaps, they may.

Showed beyond the limits.

Leonid For.

The situation.

It is necessary to sacrifice the union.

All the advanced agreements that are now leading the way need

to continue drawing

a line, to pursue the line that has been pursued throughout this year.

I think it would be wrong to remove this text from consideration, and it can be adopted

as a basis and refined further; in my view, removing it would be wrong.

Thank you.

But judging by what has been said today, we are not ready

to adopt any innovations at this meeting.

This is a matter for a vote.

Or we could create a programmatic working group that would prepare a document

that would allow us to conduct a discussion

on a more basic level.

More.

But I emphasize,

the council is necessary.

There are two.

Different.

Drafts to adopt

to use one of them as a basis and then create an editorial,

which could

at the next meeting in a calm manner.

And for now I...

Modified by a majority,

that is, 30.

To postpone this matter. In...

I would like to state my personal position.

Unfortunately, I probably

do not know how to use email

and prepare,

I think the opposite.

As Boris said, we first need to create a second group and draft this resolution.

I see its merits, but there are also serious shortcomings,

since it says here that we,

we are then seeking to liberalize.

The work of creating something more or less...

Test it out, perhaps,

if somewhere along the way by next time this...

Carry it out.

I think that.

This document is, of course,

worthy. But

simply one that will define our activities for the coming year.

Therefore, adopting one of these drafts now

in this rushed way and

is not considered possible.

I believe a group should be formed in which representatives will be included

of various forces and...

This is a common project; it should be advanced.

A vote at the next meeting considers that right now,

if we adopt one of these drafts, an unacceptable situation may arise.

A number of members of the Coordination Council propose forming a group

or else remove it. Indeed, this issue today...

A good judgment.

Here is one of the options.

I am ready to join.

Yes.

Representatives: Igor

Dmitrievich Krivtsov.

I would very much ask

to show...

Because that way, in a row...

The regions. Have hit a wall.

A protest movement is already underway,

where the question is already being raised that it is necessary

Simply to demolish it entirely.

The entire political elite.

That was formed during Putin's

rule in Russia.

And today Ilya is causing today

a great deal of expert attention.

There, in the CC, he works on the board,

and there he is in the trade unions under...

Doubt by these...

Putin-backed appointees.

And he is not there.

There is one option proposed by Yashin: to remove the issue from the vote.

There is a proposal to put it to a vote.

I must put the question in the interpretation in which

Yashin is now putting it to a vote.

Everything else afterward.

Now, from the agenda.

I have another proposal: to change the agenda item and work on it.

Sorry, no,

sorry, that will be after the vote,

which will take place on the proposal of our colleague Yashin.

I have already been removed from the agenda as well.

Further, if the motion passes, then Yashin

will be able to submit his own; if it does not pass,

as I understand it, there is no agenda item in the form of a rule, if I understand correctly.

If there are no other proposals, if there are no others, all right, then,

who is in favor of removing it from the agenda

without discussion?

Also now,

during the telephone poll that took place on the 17th,

who is in favor of leaving it under the item of

consideration?

Question.

Next week it will be necessary

two by phone

to say. Yes,

quite frankly.

Twice.

To be.

Thus, the decision is to remove it.

Let us

formulate the proposal informally.

This has been said many times here by Navalny,

I hear from his colleague: please formulate it.

He started first; I have already formulated it.

to replace discussion of the CC statement draft with a provision on creating

a working group of the Coordination Council to formulate the statement

I proposed

to vote. It has been proposed on the grounds that

you want to push the problem

into the most revolutionary group.

For this to work, the group has to be smaller.

How much smaller can it be? Are there any definitions

of the principles by which it is formed?

A person can...

These ideas are real

groups, and which ones?

We know, in fact.

There is a platform.

We have been convinced of this again and again.

That this is

a useful thing.

So we think that rather than just pushing it into a group,

it should be transferred to a functional working group that will be able to help us

work.

Another matter is that it may well be necessary to decide that

the adoption of this document, its final adoption, should take place

perhaps as an exception and contrary to our usual approach

of a single vote at the next meeting, which most likely will not be tomorrow,

but instead by means of a poll or a vote.

Since this is about being able to circulate the document, it can be read

the documents can be reviewed, people can speak, and then it can be done more quickly.

It seems to me that this can be done as one package: the formation of a working group

and the procedure for final adoption

of such a document does not at all have to be reduced to something very...

Colleagues, I

am categorically against discussing the substance of the matter now.

For 20 minutes I have...

I condemn the Moscow terrorist attack.

I am also against twisting each other's arms.

I am against that, against it.

I apologize that it remains on the agenda.

before submitting the petition.

Everything we have to say, we will say during the discussion. That's it.

Now it's clear.

So, as for insisting on a vote, I support Navalny's colleagues

and I withdraw mine. My own proposal.

Withdraw the irony, and then

everything can be said.

Please note that if our colleague has withdrawn his proposal, then I will submit mine.

I will submit it.

Rephrase the agenda item.

Thus, create a working group for

discussion.

This is a statement on the situation in the country.

The task of the protest movement.

And a statement about this statement by the working group.

I understand how your draft differs from discussing the draft.

You can.

You can propose it so we can take a look.

A discussion?

And what's the difference? The proposal is as follows.

On the agenda of the next

protest movement in the country.

Who is in favor of leaving in force the one under which

was requested after the vote?

I do not think this issue needs to be addressed in every

discussion.

If people want to.

To formulate it and.

If they vote against,

then in favor of keeping the wording recorded during the discussion.

And to give

an answer.

Well then, we will continue voting.

Who is against?

Six votes.

From Civic.

Then associations with July also began to arise.

Then someone even remembered Hanukkah, the widely celebrated Jewish holiday.

And, of course, in my view, we drifted somewhat into a kind of constructive dialogue.

So my colleagues and I discussed this situation.

I propose that today we consider

the problems and a compromise

of the civic side.

The platform will support this as well.

And it will support it.

We have lost a lot of

time.

And extra time would not hurt right now.

Based on these pragmatic considerations,

not with the Jewish holiday, the first anniversary, your 1,000,000, or anything else.

I'm gathering the key questions.

I have a proposal

to set the compromise date for the march

as December 15, 2012.

That is a Saturday.

Again, we are taking the regions' views into account

this gives us an extra week

for preparation and, I hope, will remove all disagreements,

which, it seems to me, arose somewhat artificially.

Our main task now is to consolidate all efforts this year,

Therefore, regarding the date, I withdraw my proposals.

If, of course, my colleagues are also ready to support this, I hope.

Withdrawn.

I propose that we consider the consolidated date of December 15.

As for the format,

we have already discussed this same thing.

There is an understanding that the format of a march

without a lengthy rally is the most acceptable in the current situation.

People are tired of grand speeches.

We need to focus on action and movement.

Therefore, the format of a march without a lengthy rally

I consider not the most appropriate.

Possibly a short speech at the end of the march,

perhaps some kind of resolution could be read out.

I think this can be refined as a technical matter.

I propose the format of a march without a lengthy rally

under a title, because that is what appears on our agenda,

and I do not think this should become a stumbling block either.

I propose that we now adopt some decision and choose any binding title.

"March of Freedom" was mentioned here, for example.

I also voiced that initiative.

I am the заказчик убийства, freedom—for me, for example, and for many others

I already know that it will still be the March of 1,000,000.

As long as the liberals are sticking with the March of 1,000,000, I think yes

yes, yes, yes.

So, regarding the name, I propose

any acceptable title.

Let it be the March of Freedom, and then finally form

a working group on symbols

from representatives of the coalition council, which will carry out

technical functions, submission of the application,

negotiations with the mayor's office, and it should include

representatives of all the most authoritative forces

and informal associations that have emerged.

Those are my proposals.

I hope we will adopt a constructive compromise decision and begin

preparations in earnest.

Yes, I just wanted to say

that Udaltsov is a little behind the times,

because we have already proposed the date of December 12

in our draft resolution, on the grounds that, unfortunately, it is impossible

simply because we will no longer have time to prepare.

Some.

Time for.

Discussion of these drafts before we begin this discussion.

I would like to emphasize, because I believe this is important,

that from the group of citizens and

Alexei Navalny, and some of the people who also signed

and discussed this draft with us, 14 of us submitted a certain

final draft, which we propose

for discussion under the title "March of Freedom."

And at 15:00, I propose that this is the draft we discuss from our side

the one submitted jointly by us, and already

not discuss the previous proposals.

I regard this as our final joint version,

reworked from the concept for the ninth.

Questions for its

submission.

Yes, it has been submitted.

Please, 14 people, and so on.

Gelfand, Lazareva, Mirzoyev, PARKHOMENKO, Sobchak.

A chance against a blue background.

NAVALNY: This is a joint draft, based on

the draft from the debate, dated and titled "March of Freedom."

I propose it. There are many who want to speak.

I ask

that we stay within reasonable limits.

Maxim, Alexei, I still suggest that we turn to the document.

Let this be our project.

The direct author of this document

after lengthy discussions.

which is presented here

listed here, I tried, as far as possible,

to coordinate all of this with Kasparov, and through him, with our colleague Udaltsov.

So I apologize that I was not able, of course,

to coordinate this with everyone, but it seems to me that this draft

comes closest to some kind of compromise

and to a point of unity that will truly allow us to carry out an effective action.

I propose that we adopt it,

and form an organizing committee for the action that will resolve all the remaining issues

such as the route and so on. Thank you, Boris.

I very much

like the draft, and I like the name Freedom March.

I think everyone will stick with that name.

The only thing is, we need someone responsible for preparing

this very action.

I propose appointing Navalny as the person responsible for the preparations

and I propose including the draft,

which he in fact prepared himself.

Apparently, he was too modest to put his own name down.

I am not shy about it at all,

so I am happy to put his name forward and give him the opportunity to form

a group that, in his view, will work most effectively,

because in fact we do not have much time, and there are a great many volunteers.

In the end, this whole thing will be spoiled for us

by taking a vote on these points and making a decision.

At the moment, at least six such points have been proposed, let me remind you.

First, to hold an action timed to the anniversary

of the start of the mass protests in Russia in 2011.

Let me remind you that this

decision was already made at the first meeting of the Coordinating Council on October 27.

Therefore, in my view,

there is no need to adopt a corresponding decision by vote.

The four points that are here are the point on

the format of the action, the holding of the action, and the discussion of slogans.

And the last point is

the group responsible for preparing

the action; on each issue

we should hold a brief discussion before deciding.

Colleagues, since what was discussed on our mailing list was the substance

and specific questions related to organizing

the actions, on those points that Andrei Illarionov in fact mentioned,

and which are not present as complete documents.

But having encountered the fact that, one way or another, documents were coordinated for us,

I took those proposals that

I had expressed on the mailing list and also formulated them as a coherent concept,

and I apologize for the flaws in the way the document is formatted.

What you have now, beginning with the words, “I consider mobilization...”

For demonstrating the position of the protest community, this is exceptionally important.

The main emphasis

is an emphasis on

the defense of rights.

Political prisoners and the practical proposals connected with this,

aimed at reducing the scope for political repression.

And here I see two possible paths:

either we discuss specific concepts and vote to choose between them, or we...

IONOVA: We discuss it outside of any competition, and that remains an open question.

What can I

say?

Dear colleagues, I have one question:

when exactly are we...

going to hold it? Ours is connected

with the movement, and when events are held on Saturday

turnout is significantly higher than on Sunday, much higher.

Are we keeping this principle, or are we changing the concept?

We have been holding our actions on Saturdays up to now.

This is a question that can be put forward.

It is a strategic line.

In fact, most of the actions took place, remember,

on Sunday, or on Freedom Day, when there were public holidays.

There was momentum on those days too.

I do not object, but I would simply like us to settle this here.

Because when we kept saying, day after day, that

first question, second question—what I wanted to say was this.

I support a march in any form,

as it was at the March of the Millions / For Freedom, it does not matter.

I think the name is good, absolutely unobjectionable.

Because just now Sergei Udaltsov said that it would not be bad

if this march were held with some kind of

emotional note, a title—and then that should be thought through.

It may indeed not be a resolution; it may be some kind of

short performance, something like a concert, well,

perhaps, I do not know, Dmitry Bykov, who was saying, who shouted, “I’ll come out,”

the head of the Coordinating Council, a protest leader.

I will read it out.

Surely we cannot simply walk away from the march on the anniversary.

We cannot.

I ask.

Those are the words being said.

The proposal is to vote as follows.

That will be the case.

When it was rejected.

Because: who is in favor of approving the format

of the action as a march without a formal rally

for submission to City Hall?

Right, noted.

On holding the action.

That is, in favor of the action being called the Freedom March.

Simply that?

I mentioned it.

Excellent.

And for now there is a штаб (organizing committee),

which it has been proposed Alexei include, and some number of people may also...

Anyone who wishes may join the committee.

That is, there is no need to nominate or delegate anyone.

Simply whoever wants to.

Those ready to work on it.

I would like to see at least

Udaltsov.

That is it.

Yes? Thank you.

And others can join afterward.

Are there any objections to this committee configuration?

No, no, that is all; Alexei will explain the rest.

Let us vote.

Alexei.

We have...

It is not entirely clear whether people understand if it can...

This will still be discussed after all.

Yes, I think so.

Which question is that?

I... The question is

whether the organizational issue will be resolved.

Sergei Udaltsov’s position is also reflected in the document, colleagues.

DAVIDIS: There are other slogans as well.

So let us agree on the slogan.

I understand that we can change our slogans, and the banner too.

We have six.

Not all the slogans will fit on it.

Let's put it that way.

Seven or eight.

Words.

They are ready.

Vladimir Tor.

This is a proposal.

The slogan is "Freedom of choice and freedom of speech."

In my view,

it is completely unclear what this is supposed to convey.

The intelligentsia should send a signal?

That was my suggestion.

Which one?

It seems to me that they are extremely...

Necessary.

The one regarding which I expressed my view to you.

They are quite...

They chose in favor of freedom quite clearly.

Long-term.

Demands that hollow out our program

are one and the same thing.

That is already about the slogans.

It seems to me that it was absolutely rightly said that the main slogan

will be the one that comes first and, so to speak, contains the most.

Free.

We must not forget.

Including A as well.

I thought I would agree with the representative of the nationalist faction

and fully support Vladimir Tor's proposal.

I would not agree that

the majority is like that.

A matter of taste.

And the people there are actually much less inclined that way than most of us.

That is, do you know what there is there?

What is it that they want?

I mean that we should not.

Put up with it.

Second. The slogan in train cars.

Absolutely right.

These are representatives of the opposition.

And everyone else, like me, has seen this many times in discussions.

And they answered this question.

And third, I read

that the key slogan is the demand for a fair trial,

which, in particular, encompasses everything else within it.

And everything else, in my opinion, is very correct.

That's all for now.

That is not something automatic by default.

All three

previous actions.

Therefore, the slogan should be a demand for a rerun election, for early elections.

All of it is ours, close to home.

And the current appeals, the aggressive slogans—they are included by default.

Personally, I would join this march under the slogan

With the demand for a peaceful...

Procedure.

I would include that too.

When we were choosing these three slogans and...

A stylistic choice.

elections, freedom of speech as the key...

A bit more elegantly, for that reason...

There until the end of the year.

Maybe

anything one wants.

By default, we will support everything that has already been said.

And against Konstantin Krylov's proposal

arguments can also be made, since...

And songs.

will come out to these marches,

but put "Freedom for political prisoners" at the forefront.

And many people

we are persecuting.

We must speak.

Everything else follows from that.

As long as Vladimir Putin has not...

receive such a judicial...

Constitutional Court

with such social networks,

I would say, with a large number.

I have 109,000 readers.

I think a substantially larger number of people read Alexei Navalny

on LiveJournal, and it was also very easy, once this draft had been published in advance,

for a huge number of people to show up with the same question about this draft:

"Can I come out with a different slogan instead?"

It seems to me that all of them there should be told, together with

Navalny, methodically answered

the same thing.

Namely:

Whatever you consider right.

The slogans we are considering today are by no means

an exhaustive list.

of slogans.

Moreover, even if someone believes

that they should come out with placards saying "Down with dictatorship,"

"Down with dictatorship," and that is all,

let us treat it exactly as it is described.

The point is this.

It seems to me, of course.

Any.

Proposals.

Excesses are unlikely.

If we simply put forward

once again slogans of the "all good things against all bad things" type,

then that will be very—well, in my view, the disagreements in the main discussion are

absolutely stylistic, because the slogan "Down with dictatorship"

in effect now implies a demand for real elections altogether.

Because where there is dictatorship, there are no elections,

and where there is choice, there is no dictatorship.

And stylistic disagreements are probably already a matter of long-term development.

The only thing I wanted to say in response to colleague German was

that this turns a political slogan, a political rally, into a rally

for judicial reform.

Because today there is no one to carry out that reform,

and as long as things are as they are here in the Kremlin, there will be no judicial reform.

Is it really so hard to understand

that?

Representative?

So, dear colleague.

Valery!

Freedom of speech, the slogans

"Freedom for political prisoners" is...

Right?

This is a matter of principle.

Of this patriarch.

Which, in...

my view, concerns political prisoners.

Down with the dictatorship, early elections.

The upcoming elections are.

A political definition of the position

of the protest movement.

The reaction is moving into the first

group of political prisoners.

This is a living, real slogan.

Next.

How is that?

As if, in assessing it, we have a dictatorship,

And then the second slogan: Down with the dictatorship.

There is nothing accidental here.

Next, what are we demanding?

We demand early elections as a way to overcome the dictatorship.

Therefore, the proposed triad.

Freedom for political prisoners!

Down with the taboo and early elections!

Internally, they are logically connected.

Nothing here is random; support this proposal in sequence, or...

No, on February 23,

since those of us present in the hall were counted,

it simply cannot be considered.

Practically without consultations.

26, 27, 30, 30,

35, 36% out of 89 — I counted 39 people,

which means the chances are positive, and so on — 343 people

are in principle taking part in the voting process under the temporary rules.

I can't yet, for now.

We have

I counted 39, and that matches the votes we had.

It's 20% there.

It came in.

All right.

So, now then, I have a proposal,

to avoid voting on all the slogans right now.

Where do we have

democracy two?

Vote on each of the proposals.

There are already 12 slogans now.

For ourselves.

To hold a ranked vote

on the slogans.

The point is,

that, a brief remark.

The slogans will, once, at the core

such is

the party.

Which gives today's

flow of time.

Andrei Andreyevich, Andrei Nikolayevich proposed

perhaps it may seem too drawn out to you.

These are all questions. Please spare

the Poles.

I submitted a proposal on.

Early repeat elections.

Free.

What did I like?

Just a great recording.

Simply Alexei.

Then also.

Since you asked.

As the proposal to vote was made.

You want.

A package of slogans?

By conduct.

It is about procedure.

The beginning

of the revolution?

Yes, on.

Some kind of it already, still.

Freedom for political prisoners!

This is not.

Only.

It counts.

And 15 votes was not enough to pass.

You were given Nemtsov's colleagues' proposal

as a slogan?

For your freedom and ours!

As the first one.

Then I propose

so then.

To call for it directly.

Put it forward.

This to a vote.

No need.

So, in the opinion of the first speaker.

Dear colleagues, please do not take

the party.

Our rules currently stipulate that.

The word is 'security.'

In favor. The first time, in favor.

Once.

It can be prepared by the second day.

I would ask everyone who wants to support it, not yet.

11, 12.

13 — I am still reading

and I see there.

And let's be silent. This is.

Also very much.

In different ways. And.

Twenty each.

In principle.

Thirty voted.

Five, six, seven, eight.

Nine, ten

from. Two.

Next.

Two. And.

15, 13, 14, 16.

Again? That's all.

The same most

taking into account.

Votes

prepare four votes.

That is.

The last option, in my view, is the slogan.

This is the leader.

Which works.

Regarding these very glamorous, but overly

emotional remarks — excuse me.

First of all, I believe that slogans are precisely within the competence

of the Coordinating Council; this is for the working group, an application to include it in this.

Well, or you voted for the slogans.

That means those items that received more than 200 votes are considered adopted

by the Coordinating Council, and the group no longer has the right to add, to add.

That is the first decision.

The second is the vote for 'Down with the dictatorship.'

And that is important.

Friends, do you have any objections to what it is promoting or not?

It already exists.

You should step out.

Which one?

Alexei, as the head of the working group.

It is clear that all these slogans are supported by all of us.

Okay, we just voted on which words

or which combination of these words seems more appropriate to us.

All right, we're done with that.

It has no practical significance in preparing for the rally.

What, am I supposed to make posters using exactly those words?

The first banner—yes, the first banner, yes, the first one.

Everything else is a matter of—come on, we have

money,

we have everything; we could discuss it for a long time.

It seems to me that it is already more or less clear what

we are talking about.

Next, just yesterday, very briefly, we had with you 'Freedom'

for political prisoners.'

In the concept, those three words came out on top.

But note that even in the concept, it is in third place.

Therefore, if we go with the first slogan, 'Freedom for political prisoners,'

it will not be timely.

Our goal is mass participation. That is the main thing.

Not even the primary slogans are those accepted by the majority of the population.

'Freedom for political prisoners' is one of the main ones.

Only here is it in first place.

I just

categorically insist on this and propose supporting this point of view.

Two, two of our colleagues right now, and dozens,

and dozens, dozens of our colleagues.

I myself voted for it.

Andrei,

I would just like to remind everyone once again of what I said.

It was supported by the ranking.

In the vote, the slogan 'Freedom for political prisoners'

was supported by 35 members of the Coordination Council; the slogan 'Early elections'

got 25, and the slogan 'No to dictatorship' got 24; that was the maximum number of votes.

I propose that we draw a line under this discussion here.

We know when the action is taking place, we know its format,

and we have a working group headed by Alexei Navalny.

I hope that it

will fulfill its assigned duties by December 15.

Sergei, one more question, colleagues.

Still, the content of the demands is a very important point.

Not the slogans, but the substance of the demands.

And to leave all this up to the headquarters, which has assembled,

I would still emphasize, there was no decision placing them under anyone's leadership,

it needs to be decided here and now.

Sergei, regarding the slogans, I have specific proposals.

Let the Coordination Council confirm that we are keeping our demands.

All the demands formulated at the previous event remain in place

without any reduction.

Some local matters are not matters of principle; those should be decided by the managers.

This has been said many times already,

so I ask that it be put to a vote, unless anyone objects.

We had that march in late September.

There was a clearly formulated resolution,

created through the efforts of all our respected colleagues, many of whom are present here.

I simply ask

that we vote on it. Vote.

Exactly. All right,

we are keeping it. In favor.

As they were raised at previous protest rallies.

Are there any objections? If there are none, then no objections.

Therefore, the vote is as follows

that's it.

So this took up more of our time with these appeals than expected,

more than we would have liked.

And here the issue is that it was said the group had been formed,

the group has been formed—the group consists of Navalny, Parkhomenko,

Davidis, Udaltsov, and Gudkov. That group was voted on.

The personal composition of the group was voted on in that way.

Alexei, I want to emphasize once again that this group

can include anyone who wants to join and has something to contribute to it

and who has any resources they can bring to bear.

It is our common cause.

I wanted to ask, uh,

is this still on the agenda?

Yes, after such a

heated and emotional discussion.

Our fourth item will be

the Coordination Council campaign

many things, that

the statement has been made, to vote

for the decision as a whole, as soon as

for the decision as a whole—who was in favor of the December 15 action?

Let's vote. What else?

The decision as a whole.

And overall,

that on December 20 we will hold it in the format of a march, and we have a group

a working group; everyone has voted. Right.

But he, precisely, will not allow even the slightest violation of

the procedure, so,

the Coordination Council's campaign to include

opposition representatives in precinct election commissions

with full voting rights. The presenter is our colleague Alburov.

Dear colleagues!

On November 1, amendments to the legislation came into force

on the basic guarantees of electoral rights

and the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to participate in referendums.

According to

the amendments that have entered into force,

precinct election commissions will be formed on a permanent basis.

That is, the commissions that are formed will take part

in the election of the President of the Russian Federation, parliamentary elections, and in Moscow

they will take part in the mayoral election and the Moscow City Duma elections.

It is extremely important now to try to place our people there,

people who will be able to resist falsifications

and ensure fair elections by putting forward our candidates.

Special commissions may

parliamentary parties,

and non-parliamentary parties will also be able to send them.

Meetings of voters

can also become a permanent mechanism.

I propose an action plan

under which we can begin preparing

and sending people who will be registered

through the National Council to election commissions.

I ask everyone to review it and vote,

to adopt

this as the first responsible

second action plan after the discussion, which should create

public discussion.

It seems to me that everyone has read the document.

I have not heard any particular discussion about it.

Are there any comments or additions?

But for some reason

I want to support the proposal, because we have seen

election fraud, which, properly speaking, is one of the things to be monitored,

one of the issues proposed for discussion by vote.

So I think that if it is supported, then everything is fine.

I will leave that phrase for the final day.

Just a brief remark.

Colleagues, as you can see, there are lines in the plan marked “responsible persons.”

Everyone here loves discussing slogans, but when it comes to responsibility

usually no one signs up.

This campaign is very labor-intensive and very complicated.

So I urge everyone to fill in these slots themselves, as

I propose.

If there are no fundamental objections.

No. And.

Then let’s just vote.

Participate, take it on, and assign it to yourselves. Right?

Well, I think there are many of us.

We do not even need to count.

We have many

words, adopted laws.

All right, let’s move on.

And the majority of us are like that,

which is certainly one of the main things.

They should even be the same.

Yes, it is labor-intensive.

Under the rules, we first need to approve the procedure for working through the rules,

because this is the kind of headache we will have to get through

because of it.

So,

given that we have.

A very, very large number of amendments

here, then

there is the following proposal regarding the procedure

for working on the rules.

We have all seen that there are branching points

that gave rise to some discussion.

The proposal is that

I will call out the number of the amendment in the amendments table,

and its author will have an opportunity to speak.

There is no need to read out the full text of the amendment; one minute is given to justify it.

Then

the editor of the text

for the rules—in this case, most likely Maxim—

If it is his amendment, then Dmitry Gudkov may take the floor.

If it is an amendment by the proposer, the speaking time is one minute,

brief remarks on each amendment, after which I can

put it straight to a vote. If a very difficult situation arises,

there will most likely be one or two branching points where we will have to

discuss things quite intensively, in which case the time will be extended,

and members of the Coordinating Council will still have an opportunity to speak at greater length there.

So, as of today,

we need 23 votes.

Members of the Coordinating Council, while the temporary rules are still in force,

only an amendment that receives that support will be adopted.

Otherwise, it will be rejected.

Then the rules will be put to a vote and adopted.

As a whole, taking all changes into account.

If some kind of force majeure arises here, if it suddenly turns out

that we do not have enough time—I hope that will not happen—

then we will have to decide on adopting the rules as a whole,

without waiting to consider all amendments, and continue next time.

I hope that will not happen.

So, there is a proposal regarding the procedure for submitting them.

Comments, procedural matters.

This document,

point five of this document says that an amendment is considered

adopted if 23 members of the Coordinating Council vote for it.

In my view, this point should be changed, and amendments should be voted on

as alternatives to the provision to which they were submitted.

That is, not to consider it adopted only if it gets 23 votes in favor of

adoption, but to consider it adopted if it receives

more votes than the wording of the relevant point of the rules.

That was the original idea.

If it is 13 to 13

then in the original version it is different—whichever has more.

So, do I take it there are no objections?

No, I have not heard any objections. Right?

Yes, please.

I simply propose

to take the floor. Duma-related.

Amendments.

There, in the justification for the amendment, then one position

and one position against, as we call it.

Well, here, in fact, that is most likely how it will be.

Just considering that, so to speak, the author of the text, so to speak,

right? So, well, roughly speaking, that will not work then.

So,

there are about 20 of these amendments.

So, please, the text and the amendments

can be presented.

An important remark.

I am also in contact, intermittently and when I have battery, with a member of the National Council.

Let me remind you, he is in a difficult situation right now: they want to put him in prison, and he is effectively underground.

And he cannot follow what is happening here because the connection keeps dropping.

He asked how he could also take

part in the Council’s work.

We originally provided for the possibility of connecting both by Skype and by telephone.

So I ask the organizers to connect Suren Gazaryan to the discussion somehow.

Well, so

I can simply see what kind of

some gaps have simply formed—more quickly

suggestions: we need to speak less, right?

So

we already have all these rules and amendments.

Then I will simply go through the table that has been provided to us.

So, article 1.3 of the rules.

Sergei

Davidis: actually, this is article 1.

The point says, naturally, first of all.

Second, since after the amendments were introduced

it was revised, the first sentence should not be considered an amendment.

It is an addition to what is now written in article 1.2.

That is, on specific issues there may be held

Well, понятно, simply,

that is.

by the voters. Or.

To turn to them, and under certain

conditions

they may be.

Binding under certain

But to provide that, when making a decision,

or seeking recommendations for making a decision,

we may turn to our voters, seems necessary.

Otherwise, we seek their support but do not maintain constant feedback from them.

One second.

We have a procedure already adopted, says Maxim Katz.

Then four speeches—I support the amendment and propose removing it from

this result.

They can. It must be submitted,

under this.

I have no objection, I have no objection.

Sergei Neverov: Yes.

So that is how it turns out now, logically speaking.

I am on the same topic.

In fact, of course, the CC (Coordination Council) should make the decision.

Responding accordingly.

Therefore.

Advisory only.

Sergei,

I have a question for the authors of the amendment.

What does it mean to have unified rights to participate in it?

Could you clarify?

Are these people who are simply registered on Democracy 2, or is some additional procedure required?

There will be a special procedure so that,

to qualify for participation in this specific vote,

voters in the Coordination Council election were registered,

and they are the ones who have these rights.

Some of them are part of Democracy 2,

and some do not want to register for the elections.

As I understand it, legally,

these are overlapping sets

of registered Democracy users

and Coordination Council voters.

In fact, as Sergei correctly noted, these really are not,

as far as I know, many of them do not coincide one hundred percent.

You are referring to those who, within the framework of

the Coordination Council election, registered, since the procedure,

as I understand it, is still ongoing, while Democracy 2 is also registered,

in any case, this needs to be clarified and taken into account accordingly.

Ilya,

I would like to suggest that the chair appeal

to the Coordination Council so that they return to the hall

and I understand, of course, that this is not very exciting

and that this tedious procedural work can wait.

As for

the proposed amendment, I am against adopting it in this wording,

because it allows for an overly broad interpretation.

And I simply see room here for possible conflicts.

Perhaps the idea goes deeper, but in this wording it is unacceptable.

The last speaker, because Andrei.

I have the following proposal,

all these explanations about who is

a participant-user, a user of the Democracy 2 website,

should not be removed, but instead recorded

in the following wording:

the results may be submitted.

Exactly.

They may support it.

That is, this does not exclude the possibility that they may be mandatory.

And indeed, to express

may be of an exclusively advisory nature.

That is, it is perfectly obvious that we can vote for the amendment,

adopt it as a basis, and then our future

editorial commission can finalize it,

because trying to do it orally right now seems pointless to me.

I would like to say something else. An important point.

The point is that in this case it does not clarify

whether a decision of the Coordination Council

in this case may be made by people who are not members of this organized council,

that is, by participants who decide to redefine participation.

No, I

am proposing a merger at the urging of Garry Kimovich (Garry Kasparov's patronymic).

I simply want to make the early

general choice easier.

No coalitions or, in other words,

no substitutions are allowed,

either for the text as it stands, or

another amendment is introduced.

All right,

if that is the adoption procedure, then fine,

it can be kept.

So here a question arises.

I am now looking at two or three proposals

2.1 and 3.2,

that it is necessary to put 1 and 3.2 exactly

in the previous version?

No, well, that is what is required.

There is no need to do it that way.

Vote.

But is it advisable?

Perhaps there is no such need.

More and more.

More in favor than for cancelling, cancelling.

Let's do it this way.

The main thing is that we rejected the amendment.

Local authorities,

colleagues, well, this seems fairly obvious.

In the voting, we have a certain continuum

of candidates who received support,

that has formed.

It is known who received what level of support as a result of the vote.

That list exists.

And if, God forbid, something happens to one

of the current members of the Coordination Council,

then according to established practice, including parliamentary practice, that seat is filled

quite naturally.

It is filled by the person who ran in the same curia as the candidate.

Based on the number of votes received.

I see no grounds whatsoever for reducing the number

of members of the Coordination Council if someone leaves.

What matters here is this.

Possibly it does.

Meaning

size.

There may be a size of membership at which

the work of the Coordination Council makes sense,

perhaps, but not in the mechanism

that is currently being proposed in these amendments, which proposes introducing

a fourth point.

This is highly important in principle, because

it is very important

that a considerable number of votes is involved.

Let me suggest this,

everyone has heard the arguments, please vote.

So, there is an amendment.

Sergei Davidis: In favor of adopting it.

One of the votes

And who is in favor of keeping this article in its current form? I am,

I have more.

One, two, three, four, five, six,

seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 14, 17.

That is all, no more than that.

More

than those who signed. That is it.

That is roughly how it turned out, because

this process for

As for Gudkov's wording, I believe it concerns the chair of the meeting.

And briefly, I would note that a permanent

elected official.

That is somewhat unclear.

If we do not gradually establish this,

the executive director and manager of the body will be the executive secretary.

We could observe that just now.

That is, this will be the only person who is constantly engaged in

some actual work and can make certain decisions.

Second, if we do not have a permanent chair,

the chair will not be able to prepare for meetings and

will have to go through some kind of approval process,

to state it in the article in this wording: not to elect one each time, but to elect a permanent chair

for the entire year.

What? Could this serve under the

rules of procedure as a whole?

So I am grateful.

Yes.

The amendment violates democratic principles,

of organization as we understand them.

No. We do not need that.

In the previous version, without the chair's involvement,

we would schedule the next meeting at the preceding one.

And it seems to me that...

If?

First.

Then it is not very clear here from

the rules of procedure whether the positions of chair

and executive secretary can be combined.

And in order to preserve democratic procedures, if such a person is to be chosen,

then let that person serve as chair for two or three months, or for two or three meetings.

That is the next question.

The chair.

Pavel.

If we now

if we elect one of our colleagues,

It seems to me that our colleague's amendment is actually quite dangerous,

because it would create personalization within the Coordinating Council.

Personalization within the

Coordinating Council will inevitably lead to an internal power regime.

And, Sergei,

it is impossible,

it will lead to internal distortions, and this is a dangerous amendment.

As for our colleague's assertion, it seems, that

the director...

Or the secretary

is a member of the Coordinating Council.

Then there would be

a merger of administrative functions that is politically genuinely dangerous.

Whereas when there is a bureaucracy that does not have political

barriers.

That risk is neutralized.

The final speech.

I see someone here, perhaps.

We will have a

chair.

That will remain in place.

We will have no problem at all with who will preside.

Therefore, I do not think it is advisable to elect someone and create problems for ourselves.

To multiply offices by decree,

and for what?

In favor of

preserving unity and accessibility.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

The chair is chosen by lot for a term of two to three months.

The point is precisely that it is fundamentally important to combine the positions.

I propose not electing an executive secretary

and transferring all functions to one elected leader.

I support the proposal

to transfer the executive secretary's functions to one of the leaders.

After that, he can appoint assistants for himself.

But I am categorically opposed.

Unfortunately, I propose, unfortunately,

to go by the amendment as it is written, excuse me.

But unfortunately, that is how they are written here,

and drawing lots resolves this issue.

All I can do is take another look.

Withdraw it.

I suspect that the version I submitted was not this one, if this is the one that was used.

If this is indeed how what was written was transcribed.

By the way, the wording is already written out at the beginning.

I myself called it something completely different,

so if it was entered incorrectly, that is not my fault.

The fault lies with those who prepared the document.

Let us take

the third one and consider it together with amendments seven and nine.

You, then,

let us go one by one.

Here we have amendment 10 and amendment 7.

And what you said next will be amendment 9; yours is amendment 7.

Who is in favor of adopting it?

You mean now?

I think—I'm simply asking: amendment 7.

There are people willing to put themselves forward for another year; everyone is making plans there.

Next, the following amendment.

Let us get to work.

But it is precisely in the same logic

that led us to reject the previous amendment on qualification grounds.

Strictly speaking, this would lead to distortions,

arising from consecutive terms.

The point is that there are, after all,

40 of us, and several dozen meetings will take place during that time.

Given that each member may serve twice, that means roughly a quarter

of the members of the Coordinating Council will be able to chair a meeting.

In that sense, consistently

and as a test,

the most important structures would be formed with great difficulty.

In that sense, it is guaranteed to be unreliable, and more than twice

we have every opportunity to do this at all.

I propose rejecting this amendment.

The limitation is clear.

All right, let us vote.

Did I state it specifically here, or

what I want to say is that

we have not yet faced this, but very soon we will also

have to search for people willing to take this on.

Those who want to can

This amendment was rejected for exactly that reason.

Right now, and later, once some time has passed, I assure you,

that among those who are willing and able, there will be, excuse me, only a few.

So there is no need to doubt that the abilities

of our colleagues have been thoroughly tested.

All right, who is in favor of adopting the amendment?

Sergei Davidis

I will add something further on this amendment.

Nine votes.

Let us do it once again.

One more.

The discussion is already underway.

Collected.

Who is in favor?

Against.

13 votes.

So,

has the accusation taken shape?

And on the question: before that, we voted again on this amendment.

Earlier conduct by Georgy.

Ivanov's text was handed out to everyone.

Another amendment on the same issue that was not included in the list

I propose that it should not be left online now either.

This is one of those that were brought in at the end,

because it was brought in at the very

radio from Poland and Slovakia.

Therefore, I can say that one is not entitled to write on more than two sides

of the CS in a row.

This is my

real surname.

Sorry, strictly in the order they are received by the archive.

Probably so,

not consecutively, with amendment nine.

VINOKUROV: Here are two speakers.

Accordingly, amendment five is worded exactly as I proposed.

I am trying to restate my point: to combine the positions of speaker

and executive secretary, to elect

the head of the CS for three months, for two or three months.

That is not allowed.

There is also confusion in the speech as to why the executive secretary

says that his amendment has been worded incorrectly?

Excuse me, but you should have prepared the documents together.

I will explain.

I am Alexander Nikulin.

As for the framework, excuse me, please,

regarding the amendment, only the arguments that have already been voiced can really be repeated.

It seems to me very dangerous, wrong, and harmful to combine

administrative, bureaucratic functions on the one hand, and political ones on the other.

Therefore, it is necessary

to effectively prohibit it.

A member of the Coordinating Council

is involved in politics; he is engaged in political work.

If at the same time he has unlimited functions, very dangerous things happen

I'm listening; let's proceed to the vote already.

In favor—let's do it at the board of trustees of deputies

I proposed supporting the idea that combining

the position of speaker and the position of executive secretary is unacceptable. Excellent.

So, a proposal has been voiced to combine it with the position of

Speaker of the State Duma (lower house of Russia's parliament); to adopt the amendment

one, two, three, three.

Everything, even the most...

in Article Three.

After all?

Chamber.

Included.

The question of the first meeting

in connection with the fact that there will no longer be a first meeting,

the first meeting was limited, and with this

issue, it is considered that it gathered only technical amendments.

I propose that we simply

remove it from the rules altogether.

I propose rejecting the amendment

and considering this CS's first meeting to be the first one.

The meeting after the adoption of the rules.

There is an important point there about discussing this.

We'll discuss it next time.

And I propose that we not abandon discussion of this matter.

I would like this question to

be raised carefully.

Who is in favor of supporting the proposal

of Dmitry Gudkov, and that the issue be ready

to remove this clause?

It needs to be worked out by the 26th.

And then take up the issue in a meaningful way.

And then it is all the same as 11.

KONSTANTINOV

And what if the amendments concern Articles Three and Five?

A paragraph with the following wording.

There should be, respected colleagues,

representatives of political prisoner Daniil Konstantinov.

This paragraph five is precisely what regulates

representation on the organizing council

of those CS members who cannot, because they are

targets of political repression, participate directly in the meetings.

But the text proposed in the rules

establishes a rather rigid framework: that each...

Imprisoned in Moscow

a member of the Supreme Council may delegate a representative only once

for the entire duration of the Coordinating Council's work.

But you understand, judge for yourselves,

what people and human relationships are like.

And will that representative always and in every case follow the line

that needs to be maintained?

That is true. Your amendment.

And. Remove it from.

I propose in parliament

the amendment, because otherwise

a loophole will open, through which

a new person may appear at every meeting each time.

And every meeting we will begin not with Konstantinov

and another person trying to represent an absent member

of the council, but rather there should be one-time responsibility for that appointment.

This is a very important, responsible matter,

and finding a replacement in the middle of the game should not happen.

Unfortunately, such replacements may be objectively necessary

not only because relationships may deteriorate,

but also because the person

delegated by the political prisoner may, excuse me, also be sent to prison.

Therefore, it seems to me wrong to impose restrictions here.

The arguments put forward by our respected colleague Konstantinov,

in my view, are rational and certainly should

be supported

in practice; one could also find, say, representatives for Artyom there.

It is difficult to come at the last moment, suppose, in some way.

In that way. To help.

I believe that the representative...

You may think that he said what I fear.

I was the author of this amendment to the original rules

and my reasoning was as follows.

That situation involving a political prisoner is indeed

absolutely exceptional.

But the last speech

practically does not convince me that this

solution now included in the draft rules is the correct one.

Because when a person chooses representatives depending

on whether they can financially afford to travel or not,

we will be forced every time...

To refuse.

And secondly, when indeed,

I can assure you that the Council’s decision, if it is entrusted to me,

and now it turns out that we are trying to adopt a much more

lenient procedure; that seems illogical to me.

Sergei

There is the procedure for issuing a power of attorney as such, and

without a doubt, it deprives the person granting the power of attorney of the right

to transfer that trust to a new person

entirely, and that contradicts the very institution of a power of attorney.

On what grounds, financial or otherwise,

do we have this requirement here for verification and firm confidence that

this person represents their principal?

That is quite sufficient so that, if a new person appears,

who is likewise guaranteed to be a legitimate representative, we can accept them,

if and when such a person does appear.

What I want to say is that, first of all, the institution of representation, after all,

may unfortunately prove important for us,

because no one is immune from ending up in places not so remote (a Russian euphemism for prison).

But there really are problems with impostors.

An alternative option.

And so I propose that we allow for the possibility that, in cases of representation,

let’s say, with mandatory voting and a card, it is necessary

for the CS, since this is

so personal,

therefore the attendant risks

will, accordingly, have to be taken into account.

I said very briefly that such problems

arise when a party delegates representation to an election commission.

And precisely one of the mechanisms for making this impossible,

I think, is that we should support

at the same time a simplification of the registration procedure.

Alexei, I still propose that we support Konstantinov,

because life is life, and people are people.

Today Razvozzhayev is on good terms with his representative, tomorrow they may have a falling-out.

Of course, no one is really to blame for that, and Razvozzhayev is not to blame either.

So this needs to be taken into account.

Unfortunately.

Orlova: I would also support this amendment.

The point is that the voters elected members of the Coordinating Council,

and not the authorized representative of a member of the Coordinating Council

of the city council, who has the authority to nominate one person or another.

Second.

We have even seen examples before our very eyes of refusals in court

because of one’s own lawyers.

So that possibility cannot be ruled out.

The amendment is put to a vote

on whether to support Konstantinov.

It received 20 votes in favor

and passed,

and the amendment passed, because amendment 12 was adopted.

Sergei Davidis

Dear colleagues,

this amendment, insofar as it concerns the rules of procedure, will still

concerns the substance of a fundamental issue

about involving in the active work of the CS

with all rights except the right to a decisive vote.

This would maximize the number of activists.

Who

are involved.

What kind of lawyers are these? I would suggest

that the amendment simply replace this advisory body.

So as not to

lose it.

If we are speaking about this in principle,

we should draft some provision describing what kind of people we plan to involve,

but some of the unsuccessful candidates have already created a certain body,

which has expressed its readiness to help us.

That is, around 20 people have approached us.

I think we will not be able

to meet all the expectations being placed on us.

Therefore, it is very important to include these people at least in terms of attendance.

That does not mean there can be an unlimited number; the question is in what quantity

and who exactly may be present at the meeting.

I propose rejecting this amendment.

In my view, something like this needs to be spelled out in much greater detail.

That is, not just: let’s create some kind of advisory body,

and then tomorrow someone will declare, as an advisory body,

150 people, and we will not be able to assess that straight away.

I suggest that for the next meeting you submit a more detailed procedure into the rules

for forming an advisory body, as Ms. Vesna is proposing now.

I propose rejecting the amendment, because the issue has clearly not been properly worked out.

First we need to adopt the relevant provision itself, and only then the rules of procedure.

This is not the Bible. We can come back to the discussion.

Gentlemen, this is simply unrealistic.

Just imagine: we have 45 people, right?

And another 150 on top of that.

And moreover, with rights, with all the rights of a member,

except for the right to exercise them fully, speak until morning, and so on.

No, I’m not right.

I’m voting.

On the amendments, if

they are to your

liking, then fine.

A new article immediately

for all

Articles 3–6: regular registration according to schedule,

fingerprints.

It should have been excluded; it was excluded.

An important matter.

To prevent its presence

here.

If we have registered and recorded who is present at the meeting,

then we have some understanding of the situation.

I agree, this is

there.

Then I support it.

It is important for us to show attendance statistics for Council members.

At least at first

we will have meetings.

At the same time, where

will we process all of this?

It should be, under the

new law by the end of the year.

That is the maximum.

Yes. A lot.

Because we have seen an increase in

the number of those who, properly speaking,

and not just 20 a year, who took something for something

to leave the council as it is, without including

one.

Two passed.

Naganov and PARKHOMENKO

on the matter.

I will be brief

and serious. This

adoption.

is completely unfounded.

Simply put, in my view, this showed precisely that

the elections mean that we must state our position in this way.

Move this to the questions for the presenter to state their position.

You are proposing to limit the discussion time,

that is, the time during which various questions may be put to the presenter.

As I understand it, they mean the time allocated specifically for the question itself, separately from the others,

that is also a contentious issue.

As for this item, I propose rejecting it, since the very

practice of limiting discussion time,

is highly problematic; it causes a great deal of

conflict.

Suspicion.

Quite a lot of suspicion.

After all, a full

15 minutes is already long enough; there is no need to reduce this standard.

Rejection.

Sergey Neverov: My logic is simply the exact opposite.

There are several such amendments, and Naganov proposes reducing it.

I propose increasing it.

As experience shows.

There will be cases when we will be discussing genuinely

important, fundamental matters, where it is not worth trying to save an extra 15

minutes on this.

Just to clarify procedurally,

to clarify how exactly we are voting,

simply one after another,

because you have authors here

whose proposals are directly opposite.

One option, it seems, and another option,

because these are two different amendments.

Please, later, Konstantin—perhaps, dear colleagues, it would be more sensible

for us to spell out in the rules roughly what exists in parliamentary practice

as limits.

In broad terms.

Speaking in favor of Parkhomenko’s version.

I believe that we should not rush anywhere.

We must allow sufficient time

for participation in the Coordinating Council, so that we do not make hasty decisions.

Therefore, as for the first part of the proposal, I suggest

rejecting it.

Konstantin.

In my personal experience,

there are situations when, for example, it is necessary to poll all members.

That will definitely always take longer than these time limits.

In this case, I propose that we not limit ourselves.

And, I would say, we should in no way impose this kind of cutting of time.

All right, then

let us vote.

First, it has been proposed that the first part

be voted on separately.

Who is in favor of supporting this first part,

the limitation to five, to ten, and so on?

The question is: who is in favor of adopting this amendment?

One, two, four, five,

five, five, ten. So?

As for the alternative version that was proposed.

Nine, ten, eleven,

twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen—it did not pass.

Seventeen. And.

So it will remain in its previous form.

In general,

for non-parliamentary parties.

It is not so bad, so to speak, from a procedural point of view.

In parliament, all amendments are voted on by a simple majority of those present.

These are procedural matters that do not require a qualified majority.

Therefore, if the majority of contentious issues

have already been discussed under the new rules,

then the task of preserving the status quo becomes less

until a decision is made, but such a principle should remain

one, two, three.

Seven. The amendment with the fewest votes

in Oleg Parkhomenko’s version has been adopted.

Next, Article 3.6.

Representative—yes, yes.

This is Artemov’s amendment.

It simply follows from

the amendments just adopted.

If we are still increasing it to half an hour as a result of

the meeting, then it increases automatically, and there is a proposal

in general, for the meeting

to set it at eight hours, so that it does not happen that

all the time runs out, some questions are left unfinished, and they are dropped.

Eight hours pass, and we leave.

If we finish earlier, then we finish earlier, plain and simple.

That was my reasoning.

I propose rejecting this amendment.

And let me clarify that the stated 4:00 or the proposed 8:00 here

is not a rigid duration such that if we finish early, we simply get up and leave.

It is the amount of time planned for the Coordinating Council meeting.

And then, if we have not managed to discuss something,

we subsequently vote to extend the meeting time,

because, in my view, four hours is a good and proper amount of time.

I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that this is not about a working day

of four hours or eight hours, not about the number of hours, but about a meeting held during the day among these meetings.

Perhaps,

a little less,

another four hours before the meeting and another meeting if necessary.

This simply means that further on

it may be done by phone,

and there may be no meeting at all.

I propose supporting the amendment for eight hours.

This does not mean at all,

that we are obliged to sit there for eight hours, but it spares us

the need to vote on an extension.

If we adopt this amendment, then the default will be eight hours.

At the same time, we may finish earlier—or, conversely, later.

I am against this amendment.

I am in favor of any marathon sessions.

Especially since there is no lunch break here.

So, it seems to me, this is childish.

We can decide for ourselves.

And the State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament), after all,

is not a kindergarten, so we should not be limiting ourselves like this.

We need to sit and work nearly the whole day, for as long as necessary.

But this “no more than eight hours” idea—

We have there

that will be fine for now.

Let us vote,

please state your positions.

Four people should speak in favor, because they voted

to adopt the amendment.

One, two, three, four, five,

five.

So who is in favor of leaving it

in its current form?

The amendment was not adopted by a majority of the deputies.

Then, the 12th one as well, please,

colleagues propose rejecting the amendments.

Five minutes is too little; it is far too much.

We have 15 minutes, which is an absolutely optimal option.

So the only thing that’s clear is yes,

yesterday is too early, and tomorrow is too late.

This needs to be done properly,

we’re voting in sequence.

The first amendment, colleagues, is limited to five minutes.

Who is in favor of adopting it, one, two,

or is that too few?

So is there anyone who is supposed to adopt

such an option,

like a Tolstoy novel in 30 minutes?

The amendment passes

individually.

Apparently.

Simply.

Our colleague, its chair, believes

it is important to leave it as is and proceed properly

no need, no need.

It needs to be put to a vote.

The publishing house needs others, like everyone else.

That has already been said.

Please, go ahead and speak.

Even if you disagree. Right.

Three—if amendment 18.

Artyom,

so, this amendment also

is already connected with one of the amendments.

It is connected with the fact

that in the work of our body

it is necessary to provide every member with the opportunity

to express their point of view as fully as possible and to express the political will

and the opinion of those people who are interested in ensuring that this

does not develop in a spontaneous way.

There must be no mechanisms of direct pressure that could limit

the powers of our deputies.

Moreover, there is a proposal

that it would be worth bringing key issues

onto the agenda—agenda items, amendments, and additions.

There is also concern, by decision of the CS, that today

under the established procedure, proposals by CS members must be submitted

to the leadership of the council.

That is, a note from the executive secretary.

How many of you are there?

At the last meeting, a proposal was submitted by a colleague.

On the agenda

no, I think.

I ask you not to make comments.

Please, comments. According to my information,

for this meeting, dozens were submitted,

if not hundreds.

Of discussions.

Therefore, I propose rejecting this amendment and not

putting up for discussion, from any author, any

proposal by any CS member to discuss an agenda item.

And this should be decided

as established in accordance with the vote

in the strictest way in the text itself.

If we put a question to a vote, that does not mean there are 1,000,000 of us.

Naturally, there is voting here.

Briefly: I support Katz, and I believe that we have

a representative body that is like a choir, though solo performances are possible.

Any other comments,

who is in favor of supporting this? The question without—

Three, four

five, five, five

five, five.

Yes, we are in favor of keeping the status quo

as it is.

How so?

Next?

This is also a technical amendment that was accidentally removed

from the rules earlier.

So, these are three technical points.

First, debates are conducted from the podium.

That means that a person

comes up to the

podium and speaks on the matter at hand.

Second, the technical points are conducted in Russian.

Third.

I propose adopting this approach.

I stand by what I am proposing.

Dmitry, please tell us

about yourself.

Go ahead.

If there were a podium here, everyone would come up and speak from it,

and in any case I feel sorry for our future executive secretary,

who would have to bring that podium in every single time.

As for debates being conducted in Russian,

does that mean that if a speech includes

some English word, or even—

For example?

I propose rejecting this amendment not only as a technical one,

but as completely redundant and unrelated to the matter.

Who is in favor of adopting the amendment unanimously here

and specifically the speeches, and so on.

Next amendment. May I, on procedure,

Garry Kimovich, it would be proper if you

as chair refrained from personally evaluating the voting results.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Garry Kimovich, this is not entirely a matter of variety.

Still, I insist, of course, I do.

That is logical; all remarks are accepted.

Right, item 18, amendment 19.

And it has already been said here

that we are a choral collective here.

Well then, so that it is clear who is singing and how.

That is exactly what this amendment proposes.

That is, CS members may demand

that a full vote be held

either open or secret,

so that it is clear who is voting by show of hands.

Therefore, I ask you to support it,

I support the amendment and propose adopting it

the amendment is interesting in substance and absolutely correct.

It seems to me. Why not support it?

May I have a clarification?

Aren’t all our votes roll-call votes by default, correct or not?

Exactly.

Personnel matters, which they can

personnel matters.

We are not electing anyone, after all.

A person

keeps asking us: how does the way we are voting now differ from a roll-call vote?

That is the difference.

In the minutes it is recorded, in the minutes we have it recorded,

for example, when we elect a speaker for the meeting,

will that also be by show of hands, or will that not do?

It may be requested.

That's correct.

Will all our voting, in general,

be recorded in the minutes one by one, showing how each person voted?

We've removed it because, colleagues, I can't imagine a situation in which we would need it.

Whether they voted or did not vote.

These are some formal structures where

a governing body is elected; only there is the secret-ballot procedure used

or in cases of dissolution or removal of certain leadership powers.

As for roll-call voting, I believe we effectively already have it; if necessary

to record it formally, then from a technical standpoint that is difficult and expensive.

It wouldn't even be limited to just one video,

it would be a very, very big headache.

Believe me, they are provided for.

I propose adopting roll-call voting,

because it is an important part of accountability to the voters.

As Sergei said,

the voting procedure we have now

is not truly roll-call voting in the sense that one can later review the meeting,

watch the video, and see how all 50 voted.

That does not mean we have roll-call voting, because roll-call voting implies

a formal record of how each person voted, one that can be made available for review.

Then, if there is such a requirement, we must vote on a decision

in the proper manner.

And I propose supporting this amendment,

because it expands the rights of Council members

by giving them the opportunity to vote in favor of

supporting this amendment.

One, two,

six, seven.

13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20.

The decision is adopted by a majority.

And now they are not recording everyone

to vote upon request

under Article 3 of the draft law in the territorial election commission.

So we can move on, because there is still a lot left.

There is another very serious issue that will require extensive discussion.

So let's keep moving.

Amendment 20 concerns absentee voting. I

am speaking here for the first time during voting as a member of the Coordinating Council.

To put the issue forward.

We ourselves can refuse

to proceed with it or change the wording during the vote.

I propose prohibiting members of the Coordinating Council from changing

the wording after voting has begun, and accordingly to establish that

once voting starts, no changes may be made to the wording.

Dmitry, are there any objections?

No, there are objections.

Any objections?

This is not an alternative, because

the substance has not yet been written out.

After the start of voting—that is, before voting begins.

It is entirely reasonable that some technical corrections or changes may be needed.

Possibly what is being proposed is effectively an addition, not a replacement.

Therefore, to set against each other

what is written now and Mr. Katz's proposal seems wrong to me.

Right? Nevertheless, there is a proposal

and we need to vote once again.

We are voting to replace one version with another.

Maxim Reznik: Yes, yes.

So who is in favor of adopting this replacement for paragraphs 4 and 5 of the article

and those amendments?

One, two, three and

five, six, seven, eight,

nine, 10, 11, 12, 13,

14, 15, 16, 17.

Who is in favor of

keeping it in its current form?

One, two,

three, four,

five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11?

Fewer; adopted.

Let's continue considering the rest.

21. Katz. This concerns absentee voting; it is

the most important fork in the road, in my view.

Voting here

I won't read out the text, therefore; the point is to add that absentee voting

Voting.

should be conducted only on matters involving refinement of decisions adopted at in-person meetings,

as well as on organizational issues, in order to avoid a situation where some

critically important matter—such as holding a public action, or some other very important issue—

which the Coordinating Council should

resolve through discussion, statements of position, and debate, ends up being adopted

simply because it was put to a vote in which only a minority of Council members took part.

I propose rejecting it.

It seems to me that for us

it is fundamentally important to be able to put the maximum number of issues

up for absentee consideration.

For the person putting forward an issue, it is always fundamentally important.

If we discuss hundreds of thousands of issues only through in-person voting, first of all,

we will always be too late, because each time we will have to spend a very long time discussing them.

I completely agree with Alexei; let's be realistic, we will not be able to meet

once a week, while every day some event is happening,

someone gets arrested, God forbid. Right?

We need to respond.

And absentee voting gives us that possibility.

There is no need to restrict it.

I am against the amendment. I support the colleagues' position.

I want to say that discussion can quite well also be conducted remotely.

Anyone who does not wish to participate at all—especially by writing and reading—

what has been written on the matter; and in order to correct the shortcomings of absentee voting,

those connected with insufficient discussion, one can put to a vote

and, if necessary, next time submit a proposal

simply to revoke an absentee decision at an in-person meeting, as one may

speak on it.

No, on the contrary, I

support our colleague Katz on this issue, because if someone has been arrested,

we certainly can indeed respond and adopt some resolution, right?

But any serious, substantive issues should be decided

only in person, when there is a full exchange of views and proper discussion,

of course—excuse me—this is democracy, so let's do it this way.

Who is in favor of adopting

the amendment for a vote?

One, two, three, four, five,

five?

Who is in favor of keeping the existing version?

By a majority, and so on.

Now another amendment on absentee voting.

I propose adding a clause that a decision in absentee voting

is considered adopted if

half have voted in favor.

Or more than half of the total listed membership of the Coordinating Council.

This is needed now.

Colleagues, in principle I am not against this amendment,

but our rules provide that the platform is determined separately; today it is,

say, Demokratia-2, tomorrow it may be Demokratia or something else.

Perhaps we should not limit ourselves to a single platform.

For now, when we speak about it, we are speaking

about half or more of the total membership—that is around 22. Amendment 22.

There is an option; there were no objections.

We need support.

The absentee voting already conducted has shown that it is very important

that everyone should actually take part in the decision-making.

That is, 23 votes can be accepted in absentee voting, in our absentee vote.

That is, even more

an advanced half.

And there is no more than 1,000th composition,

to a lesser extent.

Therefore, half of it,

is most likely in favor of adopting the amendment.

But it is increasingly more than 20%.

And so on.

Amendment.

This is straight out of Orwell.

Voting may take place only for the good of democracy.

I am in favor of adopting the law.

So that we do not have any discrepancies,

as happened at the previous meeting, over whether they take place on Facebook or somewhere else

or elsewhere.

So, I...

I agree with our colleague Gudkov that...

This platform can be changed later.

But that should be done by a decision of the CS.

Now, since we have a CS decision on Democracy-2,

I propose allowing voting to be conducted only on these platforms.

The only question is whether this should be written into the rules.

I do not think it should.

I support Maxim's amendment.

I think it should be written down, and it is worth,

forgive me, finally getting the message out to all CS members so that they vote.

Democracy-2.

In addition, it is very important for democratic principles that all

voting is nominal by default, and it is possible to see who voted how.

This is very important.

But the text already states that voting is conducted on a platform.

By a specific CS decision, if for some reason the CS decides to reconsider its decision,

to hold voting on other platforms, why would the rules need to be changed?

That is completely unclear.

I withdraw it.

It is written.

I withdraw.

And I said: it is separately specified in our rules

in the decision of the Coordinating Council's first meeting that no,

let's still proceed; there is already an amendment, and I insist,

that I vote for the record.

If there is one.

I want to say that since absolutely any website can be

with relatively little effort by our opponents

within a short period of time

we may need to move quickly to another platform.

Therefore, I would ask that this amendment not be adopted in relation to Democracy-2 at this stage.

All right then. Voting.

We have 23, that voting

by members of the Coordinating Council may take place

only on the Democracy-2 platform.

Who is in favor of this amendment?

Question.

Of the rules.

Six people.

Who is in favor of preserving the status quo?

The majority.

Passed

the amendment.

So now,

all right.

Now

an important question, the most important one.

So, there is a CS decision, deputy Maxim believes.

This is yours, I beg your pardon,

Yes, the only thing is that when I submitted this amendment,

I had the impression that we might run into problems, contingencies,

that would make it impossible to work with it.

Accordingly, I would like to see

whether there is no possibility of making a decision by majority.

But given the current realities, as I see it, we do not have such problems.

Therefore, in principle, I would propose that this amendment, which I am now

considering, based on that...

Withdraw it, as

the proposer has the right to do.

No, wait, but nevertheless, we...

Because we...

What was the rule for absentee voting?

A decision is adopted if more than the listed membership has voted,

and the advantage in conducting it

our rules state that more than half of the members must do so

of the CS; our colleague withdrew the amendment, a new amendment may be scheduled

for this meeting.

Wording.

And to distribute information,

which, in the event of a violation,

well, in some way, right?

If we withdraw this amendment now, below,

then the next item on the agenda will be problematic.

And then we will never again be able to make a decision

on voting on all the problems in the city.

For us.

Therefore, I insist that we vote on this amendment; it is necessary.

Let us vote on whether to vote on this amendment,

and then I...

In all regions

I withdrew this amendment, and I do not believe

I cannot

I consider it the same as submitting it again.

Come on, let's still

we have had a lot of these purely formal votes here.

And, for example,

there was a decision that an amendment had been introduced.

Of course, this was about democracy, about electronic voting.

Nevertheless, it remains in place.

No, it is simply that this was

introduced, and it seems to be important.

That is, we...

Now, quite rightly,

every member has the right; do not hesitate.

Vladislav withdrew it, and I just said that he is introducing it,

and he is not on the editorial committee.

If Yashin's amendment remains as well, everything will work one way or another.

I ask you to speak on this once again.

Let us just clarify.

We separately adopted a decision on electronic voting.

There must necessarily be half of the CS membership there.

Now we are saying that the vote has ended, returning to that point.

So, accordingly, there is always the position of 23.

Or, say, a quorum of 30 people registered,

and about 30 people submitted amendments.

From another city

voted, then submitted an amendment, spoke out,

why it needs to be changed, even if it complies with these procedures.

Ilya, I can only repeat Kasparov's arguments.

It seems to me that

if we adopt, if we keep the decision as it stands in the current wording

of the draft rules of procedure, we create a situation in which

decisions can simply be blocked because someone stepped out or did not show up

and so on.

Therefore, we need to make it easier to proceed freely,

because they are very

good, as they currently stand.

Maxim should speak as well.

Did I understand correctly?

Under the rules, procedurally he speaks after our colleague.

In my view, this is the most important amendment under discussion today, a critical one.

Please note,

this clause stating that it is adopted by a majority of the full listed membership,

is important because it is the clause that always makes compromise possible.

As we remember, at the previous meeting,

the proposal made by Executive Secretary Nekrasova did not pass, and instead it was tied to the full listed membership.

We reached a compromise regarding the executive secretary.

Now it

serves to ensure that compromise is reached in the process.

In voting, and not otherwise.

A decision was made

on the basis of some small group, because someone did not show up.

Moreover,

if a majority of those present votes,

that does not rule out the adoption of two diametrically opposed decisions

by the Coordinating Council.

Today these 30 people came, and tomorrow a different group will, and accordingly,

we end up with 16 out of 45 people making the decision.

I strongly propose the amendment; I ask my colleagues regarding the amendment

not to adopt it, and to leave the previous wording: a majority of the full listed membership.

I would like to say that we voted against

the previous version, which said that voting should not

nominate candidates.

On one issue, we decided that we would have matters

put forward in any city, and in absentee voting as well, accordingly,

they must have equal standing for everyone,

and for them to carry equal weight, the rules for adopting them must be the same.

Accordingly, if we understand that 23 members of the

council are voting, let us suppose they voted, while for a decision

only 16 people are sufficient, then I believe that is wrong.

It is a terrible situation, because the decision will be ambiguous.

We must have rules.

As practice has shown, like-minded people voted for the adoption of

decisions that will have

the support of active voters in society,

which is much easier than ending up with a recording error in the vote.

I have stated my idea, dear colleagues,

to remind you that when all the rules are followed,

you get an Italian strike (work-to-rule protest), remember, that is how it is organized

in the State Duma (lower house of Russia's parliament). Today, if you recall, all decisions

were adopted by 12 votes, 15 votes, and someone simply did not show up.

That is his problem.

He can participate by phone, he can participate via Skype.

Otherwise, we will simply never make a decision.

Let us proceed from reality.

Therefore, I believe this provision should be adopted,

otherwise we will not even be able to discuss all the subsequent items on the agenda.

We will not be able to make a decision.

It seems to me that there are two different problems here that need to be

very clearly separated.

One problem is how many votes are required for a decision to be adopted

in the Coordinating Council.

My position is: 23 people.

The other issue is those 23 people,

who must be there, who are needed for the vote. They

are ready.

Or there are other ways as well.

To cast their

votes, for example by SMS or by phone.

Or transfer them to someone.

That is a separate issue, which needs to be discussed separately.

In any case, 23 votes must be obtained.

In any case, one can

see that this is the issue of the week.

Perhaps I am withdrawing the amendment.

I have been persuaded.

Send a proxy to someone else.

VOLKOV.

I spent half an hour on this.

Only you got paid.

Just tell me, please, do you know

how bad everything is?

No one can explain it.

I want exactly the same thing. That is all.

I am saying I have to follow the rules.

The same thing

I said.

I believe that, to the greatest extent possible, everything should be transferable.

So let us

bring this discussion to a conclusion.

It is important.

The next amendment is the same amendment.

Sergei PARKHOMENKO. Even so.

Not entirely.

The next resolution.

Alexei, I would like Davidis's visitors to step out for a smoke.

I think this can be adopted by

a majority of those present

Here. The question is.

Ksenia, one, two, three, four, five.

Alexei, colleagues, thank you very much.

I myself was initially in favor of our making decisions by majority vote.

But after our first vote, in which I, incidentally,

ended up in the minority, I want to say that now

I am absolutely convinced that we nevertheless need to seek some kind of consensus, even if

I am dissatisfied with the decision that was made on the slogans,

but now I know for certain that those slogans are supported by a majority of the members of the Coordinating Council.

That is impossible.

Every other decision we make is a declaration, a statement, and so on.

They are adopted by 16 people.

And among us, the members of the Coordinating Council, there may be people who are dissatisfied.

Either we seek a difficult, hard-won consensus and come to an agreement

among ourselves, adopting a decision that should satisfy the majority.

That is extremely important, it seems to me, politically speaking.

And I essentially support the idea of voting by a majority of those present,

but in the form in which the amendment has been introduced, it provides for

in effect two propositions: voting at a meeting by a majority

of those present, and absentee voting, which directly contradicts what we just

adopted.

That is, there we decided that a majority of the full membership is required.

Here it says half of 30 people.

Accordingly, these are different provisions that contradict one another.

Since we did not agree on the possibility of splitting amendments,

we will in effect be forced to vote on these contradictions as they stand.

Therefore, I am against it.

So the amendments can be introduced next time.

That's just how it turned out.

But still,

I wanted to say that I think this voting procedure is wrong.

A majority of those present, because even now

there is already a correlation between the fact that

people hold one position or another.

There is a group of people who always attend every meeting,

who write a lot and are very active for various reasons.

And because of that, people who want to vote so that

for this amendment

or for one proposal or another may simply not be present at the meeting.

We need to work within a system.

We also need to discuss and spell out procedures

for people who are not in the room,

but can still take part in the vote and collectively adopt one decision or another.

That means either 23 votes,

or provide for a procedure

under which people who are not with us can vote.

Otherwise there is no incentive.

You see, it's one thing

if Shans, Lazareva, or someone else is not with us right now, but there is still no incentive,

for these people to take part in the voting.

There was a proposal for the next meeting

to take this whole block of decisions two, three, and four

and spend some more time thinking it through and working it out

so that we can clearly define what kinds of decisions we have.

A CS decision, a decision on procedural matters, and some other kinds of decisions.

Because depending on what kind of decisions

are being proposed, the decision-making mechanism may differ.

For some, there must necessarily be three people; for others, perhaps,

a majority of those present is enough,

and then for some, absentee decision-making may also be possible.

So in our presence, to make a decision on voting

in absentee mode, specifically in the format of

Democracy-2 or somewhere else.

Therefore, there is a proposal, since this proposal has been withdrawn,

perhaps to vote on it now, but return to this issue later

in order to determine what kinds of decisions we have and how voting should take place.

So let's.

There is a proposal

to remove from the vote

these amendments 24 and 25 for the time being.

That is, there are two party-based approaches.

If a party provides for voting by majority, that is, with a quorum,

then a majority of those present can adopt any decision,

and anyone who wants to influence it has to be present.

There is a second, parliamentary practice, which provides for

various mechanisms such as certification, proxy voting, and so on.

So let's decide.

Let's take such a procedure as the basis

and after that introduce some agreed amendment,

so that we can actually adopt it and amend the rules of procedure.

I would suggest postponing amendments 20 through 25 for now

and refining this issue so that we can understand

whether we will vote as parties do, with a quorum and a majority of those present, or as

parliaments do, where there is a mechanism for proxy voting.

As the author of this amendment,

I tried,

I tried to frame it as the adoption of a resolution,

but I said there would be around 20 such cases.

The rapporteur is absolutely right.

These things are connected.

Indeed, if our rules of procedure already contained

the concept of two different categories, two different types of decisions,

a decision, an important decision, a resolution—whatever you call it—then the less important ones

could probably indeed be adopted by a majority of those present.

But since it all turned out to be

not yet worked out, and I agree that we need to do that,

and overall we need to develop this hierarchy

of several different kinds of decisions, several different groups.

So I know how this amendment was adopted

before these complications arose.

Maxim, by way of explanation: colleagues, you are talking about

different kinds of issues that should be adopted in one way or another.

Well, the rules already state that a CS decision is considered adopted

if more than half of the CS members vote in favor,

while a CS decision on procedural matters is considered adopted if

more than half of the members present at the current meeting vote for it; that is already allowed.

The amendment was introduced precisely in this form, concerning the adoption of agenda decisions.

And I propose that we keep the requirement of a majority of the full membership.

That is not enough.

Further work is required.

It can be refined and submitted next time.

I ask—listen, what,

tell me, I simply can't speak afterward.

The rules of procedure we adopt today will almost certainly be imperfect,

and like any other CS decision, we will be able to amend them.

Including absentee voting later.

Therefore, I propose that we adopt the stricter version now,

where half of the full listed membership is required.

If we realize that we will not be able to adopt

important decisions, we will then be able to

introduce the appropriate amendment.

The amendment is put to a vote.

Who is in favor of adopting it?

Here is the fourth point you mentioned,

in order to adopt it?

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

eight, nine, ten, eleven,

twelve, twelve.

So the status quo must be preserved.

There was a longer break that time,

more and more, more than 25.

A new article by Sergei Parkhomenko.

He wrote it

at the moment they are being withdrawn, withdrawn

and because they were submitted.

Please note,

23 to 26, three remain. The home stretch: 26, a new article.

Sergei Davidis, Maxim Katz, Sergei.

Well, it regulates the possibility

for at least 10 CS members to appeal

to ascertain the opinion of the Coordination Council's voters.

If three-quarters of the Coordination Council members do not veto this initiative,

then any 10 people, on matters within the competence

of the Coordination Council, have the right to appeal to the voters.

This seems important.

On the one hand, this is a feedback mechanism,

and on the other, a safeguard for the minority within the organized Council.

Question: if that is so,

please, Maxim, here is my alternative version for now.

I completely agree that the CS can put to a referendum

any issues within its sphere of competence.

However, I do not understand why it needs to be spelled out in such detail,

that it must be exactly 10 CS members and that three-quarters must not veto it.

In my view, if someone gathers support, let them bring it forward themselves.

Without a decision of the Coordination Council, amendment two needs to be made.

This allows it.

However, if the Coordinating Council, by its own

decision, decides to put something to a referendum,

that would effectively mean the Coordinating Council has authorized it. Therefore, I propose

leaving the wording as it is: that the Coordinating Council has the right

to put to a vote any issue within its competence.

I can say that organizing

support for the amendment, or for Davidis's version, are two options.

I have one question about the first amendment.

If, say, 10 people put this issue up for discussion

among voters on the internet,

is their position binding on the Coordinating Council?

That is the amendment.

This question does not concern it in any way.

Since also.

Colleagues,

it does not contain alternative options; they are not mutually exclusive,

They can be adopted, all else being equal, as the first proposal.

Second.

They may not be.

If there is no one responding, and there are no additional comments

on the vote, then no,

there are no more.

So perhaps we should adopt the new article in this wording?

Sergei Davidis

The second group

they are at one, two

three, four, five, six, seven

for. Someone among us

can adopt wording alternative to Maxim Katz's.

Ah, no,

this is the second, the second one.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve.

We can consider it adopted,

but there will already be

23. It was already clear there would be a majority.

So it is adopted in the new wording.

Article 5.1.

Sergei Davidis: Well, continuing the same concept

of integrating the maximum number of activists, in particular unsuccessful candidates

into the work of the Coordinating Council as experts.

What is envisaged here is an indication that these persons,

whom we will define by a separate provision—and I see no contradiction in the fact that

we now determine that those persons whom we designate

will be able to take part in the work, and then determine exactly which

persons, by a separate provision, will be able

to participate in this work. It seems to me that this is very important.

This is an important signal both to these potential experts

and to our voters that we do not intend to remain closed within our own membership

rather than reworking the rules later, regardless of

how we draft this provision.

It is clear that with the efforts of 41 people alone

it will not be possible to form a working body filled with competent people.

They will say

I propose that we reject this.

At present it is worded as follows: the Coordinating Council has the right to create

permanent and temporary working groups on specific issues

and areas of the Coordinating Council's activity.

I do not see the point in spelling this out now in the way it is presented here,

since it

does not set out any clear procedure.

It does not explain how this should happen, nor does it define

the people who may later join and participate in these working groups.

However, the draft is abstract,

in that it says that some persons, in some number, may participate at all.

This is a very dangerous thing,

because nothing would prevent someone from tomorrow declaring 200 persons.

And we would, as it were, find it difficult to reject

such an authoritative amendment.

As for the eighth amendment,

it proposes

that this provision on working groups

be placed in Article 2 instead of the text

that is currently written there and that regulates

the activity of the rules committee—sorry for the tautology—the rules committee.

I draw your attention to the fact that

in the main text of the rules

only the activity of the rules committee is specified.

Moreover, this activity is described very broadly.

The powers of the rules committee,

in my view, are too inflated, too broad; they are excessive,

and they partly overlap with the speaker's powers.

It seems to me that.

He is there.

Right.

Proposing either.

Specifically a budget for the working group.

That is, in effect, today we would already have to approve the provision on the working group.

It would be strange if the main group spoke thoughtlessly.

Therefore, Mr.

The same member of the Coordinating Council has the right to preside

at more than one meeting in a row; remove this word.

That is, perhaps this refers to two consecutive terms.

All right, I agree,

since under the rules, in order to

remove these words, that is, to allow

it to be recorded many, many times in a row.

Two to two.

Well, I think that

now

the most pleasant thing would be to adopt the rules as a whole

before that, to adopt the rules as a whole with our.

It will be adopted with 23 votes

most of all

for victory. Right?

Here are the rules of procedure,

there is a proposal to announce these two

That is unlikely. Perhaps there will be now.

Garry Kasparov: It won't work—actually, it will.

Let's just take a break.

Let's do it without one.

A break. Vladimir,

Excuse me, may I ask just a technical question

to begin with?

That is, in principle, there is very little time left,

and of course the hall can run over time,

but each additional part costs 15,000, just by the way, upon leaving the hall

let's save our voters' money.

Perhaps the very

without a break.

They are putting the question to us: what should we do?

Proceeding

without a break,

please continue—what now?

I have the following proposal.

Now, given that we have adopted rules that require us to adopt

any decision by 24 votes, perhaps we can still record this once again in that way.

To what extent re-registration will affect this.

Well, for now we’ll apparently have this rather specific kind of break.

And at the same time, perhaps our colleagues who are not currently here in the hall,

perhaps they will be able to join in now—now every vote, every single one,

since otherwise we’ll just be wasting time and not letting anyone leave.

There will be an executive secretary.

That can be counted there as well.

By the way, formally speaking.

We also need to specify that we count these votes cast remotely.

Well, unfortunately, we postponed that for later.

People started complaining that we have no registration procedure,

Many people don’t know this, but there are 25 of us.

For 23 votes

we have four.

The organization’s budget committee already...

Here’s the thing.

In my opinion.

That’s a lot.

The Ministry of Communications and Mass Media

you are not just citizens, but members of the council, after all.

And I simply saw it myself.

May I, as a council member, simply...

put it differently now?

I spoke with...

a judge,

I talked to them.

I spoke by phone.

There are 12 of us.

2,335 functionaries.

And two people.

One of them even

said that our next composition—that is,

the decision is still in effect.

He can come out now

in full. Skype,

but in any case we have 335, and four more people could still turn up here.

I believe that

your next question is an important one.

The next question.

The elections.

So, in fact?

But those that were approved, if you like.

Therefore.

It loses its jurisdiction.

In accordance with.

The regulations, which...

These are the elections.

They have been postponed.

For 20 days.

I believe that

there must be some reasons for this?

Let’s proceed.

If there is a specific person we can vote for here,

if we find ourselves at a dead end again, then it will be possible to communicate in this way,

if it seems impossible to do so in writing.

But it is roughly the same here.

I have a procedural question.

A candidacy has now been proposed: Dmitry Nekrasov.

He is here in person, so perhaps he could say a few words about himself.

Let’s put it this way.

Out of self-respect for Mr. Saakashvili.

It seems to me that they are the ones who should decide this issue.

They are proposing a vote on the candidacy.

If we try

if he wishes, then we will consider

the issue that has now appeared on our website.

But by then it will already be too late.

I ask that

first of all...

That is not the case.

Please explain.

Yes, I would like to nominate Alexei Navalny, since he has shown

the greatest...

Thank you.

I can.

Excuse me, I spoke with Yura.

Yury Saprykin is withdrawing his candidacy.

You know, our colleague Valery Vinogradov

in accordance with the adopted regulations

insists on a roll-call vote of the Council.

We are committing ourselves to catch up with the whole country.

No, accordingly, this should not be adopted without an alternative option.

We are now

let it be analyzed.

I’m afraid some kind of alternative may emerge.

Elena, you do not have the right to nominate yourself; nor do I, for that matter.

Excuse me, let’s nominate Alexander Belov.

If there is an opportunity, let’s not turn all this into a circus.

If we have no alternative, then this is a real circus.

If we have no alternative.

Please, no need for that.

If there are nominations, let’s put them forward.

Please.

Five representatives of these groups.

I proposed putting it

to a vote. The question is,

we discussed this.

There was an alternative.

Which did not go through.

It can simply be registered.

Not just that, but simply all of us.

Let me just clarify that there is no decision

to the effect that the regulations do not say that a member of the Coordinating Council cannot be secretary, which,

incidentally, is a restriction.

And as for an alternative candidacy, I think two weeks,

at the very least two weeks, is quite

serious.

There is one more quotation, the final point.

Is there a desire to nominate one of the members of the Coordinating Council,

who is present in the hall?

If there is such a wish, there should be.

No, everything has to be coordinated.

The discussion about what was being said has already been discussed,

as has already been noted.

All right.

All right, then let us be very

careful.

As for Nekrasov, I have

he has already been working in considerable detail on the regulations in recent weeks.

I want to note that I have worked with him and am very satisfied.

In my view, Dmitry did very high-quality work on the regulations

and on those technical matters that needed to be implemented.

I have a few questions and one request for Dmitry,

namely that in the future, if I vote for him,

the proper boundaries of competence should be observed and...

that he should not take upon himself

certain decisions that I do not believe

a member of the Coordinating Council should be making on his own. Other than that, I have no objections.

I support Dmitry Anatolyevich’s candidacy.

who voted to support Dmitry Nekrasov.

But. Under.

You, perhaps, and. You.

Who didn't ask who was against it, I did.

One, two, three

all of Oleg Shein's people.

And those who abstained.

One, two, three, four,

seven people.

Received mandate 28

and so

it turned out that also

as for Nekrasov, the candidate passed with ease.

That is why it is important that

we all

worked specifically on the voting procedure.

We have a technical issue, but it seems to me, it seems to me, a roll-call

can and should be determined through

voting.

Of course, the chair should say this—Navalny tomorrow, Larionov, and so on.

The voting procedure is laid out.

We insist that I conduct the round,

we held it, but in such a way that.

There were four; it is clear who the four will be,

and that's all.

The next issue is the budget.

Vladimir Ashurkov

At the previous meeting, a temporary budget committee was formed.

Some time ago, we sent everyone the regulations

on the budget committee,

but everyone has some basic points.

It includes three people, members of the Coordinating Council

Romanova, Ashurkov.

That is who is proposing it.

The budget provides the infrastructure for fundraising.

It covers expenses and.

The regulations on.

As for revenues, this is.

We propose adopting it.

A decision to recommend the amount of the

contribution.

Starting in November,

immediately this.

Three ways

to contribute funds to the budget: Romanova's Yandex Money wallet, and then

cash contributions by arrangement to any member of the budget committee.

And a bank account has been opened for Olga Romanova.

Here it is.

Now I ask you to note that compared with the previous version, the account details have changed

and this Yandex Money wallet will be used only for the activities of the PS.

We understand that members of the Coordinating Council are in different financial situations.

For those who find it difficult to pay the recommended contribution, it is clear

that we cannot oblige anyone to pay into the budget.

But we call on everyone

to take steps

to ensure that these funds are raised from their supporters.

Each person received at least 10,000 votes.

And. These Yandex

Money wallet and bank account details will be public.

That is, any Russian citizen will be able to make transfers there.

We will also regularly publish a financial report on income and expenditures.

At this point, funds for November have already been received

from 49 members of the Coordinating Council in total.

That is, we have 45 rubles.

That is, we understand that any working group

must be.

A source.

Of life, on December 15 we

did not even spare the effort; we voted in sequence on all the slogans,

so we know exactly which slogans enjoy the greatest support among members of the Coordinating Council.

Therefore, in the course of the discussion, it is clear that this will only be a discussion,

and it will surely continue in the editorial commission

that we will form, but we should probably approve some guidelines.

And that is the minimum we must do.

Because otherwise it is obvious that those

disputes in politics, which

have taken place outside the Coordinating Council itself as well,

in the media space, and those taking place today, will undoubtedly

lead any work into a dead end.

Therefore

whatever proposals there may be regarding the discussion process

of this statement and the formation of this very working group

or editorial commission, which will come about sooner or later,

you should still submit them for our consideration.

For our

decision, for our decision.

Alexei

Orlov

I propose not to adopt this project as is, because it is already obvious

that there are very serious disagreements even over voting for this platform.