Petition vs Open Government experts. View from the inside. Almost the result

Prehistory
In order not to run back deeply, I will first outline the topics-events on Habré around public discussions of both the petition itself to repeal 187-FZ and the situation around the expansion of “anti-piracy” legislation:
( link ) About how the government hears society, or public discussion of "Anti-piracy Law"
( link ) You do not seem to understand, we will explain. Truly public discussions 187-FZ
( link ) The State Duma opened the electronic Veche. A set of experts and the beginning of the discussion of bills
( link ) Canceling Anti-Piracy Law - Crowdfunding Project from the Association of Internet Users
( link ) Tomorrow, October 14, the final meeting of the petition for the abolition of 187-FZ will be held

What happened at the final meeting of the expert working group to consider a petition to cancel the 187-FZ
Let me remind you that this petition in record time gained 100 thousand signatures on the official Russian Social Initiative portal and, according to the regulations, should be submitted to the Government of Russia and the State Duma after the decision of the experts.
The composition of the expert commission was approved by Dmitry Medvedev in June of this year, and the Minister of the Open Government, Mikhail Abyzov, was appointed as its head.
Let me remind you that in September, the ambiguous and half-closed so-called passed. “ Public hearings ” on the topic of both the 187-FZ law itself and the petitions on its abolition, which resulted in Mikhail Abyzov, the Minister of the Open Government, invited me, Artem Kozlyuk, as the initiator of the petition, to the final meeting of the working group.
What happened. The meeting itself was held in the Government House.
')
Initially, the report of the President of the Information Democracy Foundation Ilya Massukh was heard, who spoke about the procedure for the appearance of the petition, about the cancellation of 187-FZ and statistical data about it. He mentioned an interesting point that, unlike the first petition, which collected 100,000 signatures, by Alexei Navalny’s initiative on limiting the cost of cars for officials, the petition to repeal the “anti-piracy” law received a much more even distribution of votes in Russia. Citizens from all regions of our country signed a petition to repeal the 187-FZ, and the share of Moscow was relatively small - at the level of 25%. Which shows, in particular, the universal territorial relevance of the designated problem. The distribution of votes on the petition by the subjects of the Russian Federation can be seen at the end of this document .
The following was made by the Deputy Head of Roskomnadzor, Maxim Ksenzov, who voiced the report on the practice of law enforcement of 187-FZ ( Presentation - slides ):



Then I was given the floor as the head of RosKomSvoboda and the representative of the petition in question.
My speech consisted of three sections:

1. Why both the process of making the “anti-piracy” bill in the State Duma and the law itself, born after this, caused a wide resonance in the Internet industry and society, and I described the history of the creation and appearance of the petition.
2. He pointed out the negative points in the law itself, which are harmful to society, Internet business and the economy as a whole. With examples from law enforcement practice.
3. He voiced people's opinions about the problems raised by this law and our petition.

We have posted this report immediately before the meeting itself and can be read in detail.

Then the experts themselves began to speak, who gathered about 20-25 people.
Almost all the speakers began their speech with the words: the law 187-FZ should not be canceled, BUT ...
And behind each of these “BUT”, various proposals were made, which were based both on the points indicated in the petition itself and in my report.

For example, the representative of the "Public Chamber" Iosif Diskin proposed to transfer resonant bills for "zero reading" to them for discussion, but at the same time spoke out against universal online platforms for collecting proposals into specific laws, since he does not consider them expert. After the meeting, he published his expanded opinion: “To respond to society is an important problem for any government.”

Representative of the Council of Federation Ruslan Gattarov supported the idea that it was necessary to discuss such high-profile laws more widely.

State Duma Deputy Robert Schlegel confirmed the public request for a different decision-making mechanism by the authorities and proposed to use the Internet site of the State Duma Veche for general discussions, where public discussions of its new draft law are now taking place and they showed the interest of citizens in this process. In the future, all resonant bills will have to go through a similar public “zero reading”, otherwise, the deputy stressed, without such a procedure, laws will be illegitimate in fact. Schlegel also noted that the first hearings on the bill from the Communist Party faction - on the abolition of 187-FZ , will take place soon.

Another representative of the Federation Council, Konstantin Dobrynin, noted that the enforcement of the 187-FZ is almost perfect and very few statistics - it is still early to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of the law. But actions of the Moscow City Court, for which the withdrawal of preliminary provisional measures to block sites (and their term is limited to 15 days) is not imposed, require trials at the level of the Plenum of the Supreme Court and after studying these cases, they will try to initiate the raising of this issue at the Plenum.

Svetlana Makovetskaya , director of the GRANI Foundation, spoke in favor of supporting the points of the petition, but not for the abolition of the 187-FZ itself, but for changing it in accordance with those points that were marked in the petition.

Alexander Oslon , president of the Public Opinion Foundation, said that it was not necessary to take seriously the demands for the abolition of the law, but a lesson should be learned from the phenomenon of “society offended”. Dialogue with society is needed. He revealed his position in a note : “Any demand from civil society calls for reaction.”



Deputy Sergey Zheleznyak expressed such an idea that the petition is about removing risks from bona fide resources and he is in principle for self-regulation of the industry itself. But when subjects of law cannot resolve the issue between themselves, the role of state regulation is important here. And he expressed a number of other thoughts: that pre-moderation is prohibited in our country according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (we are talking about censorship?), That we don’t have any blockages on the IP address (what ?!) and that the concept of free licenses will be incorporated into the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. There are no closed doors, we are as open as possible. He also mentioned that the proposal voiced by Ivan Zassoursky at meetings in the Office of the President on the return of the Soviet cultural heritage to the public domain in the State Duma will meet with maximum support.

Ivan Pavlov , Chairman of the Board of the Institute for the Development of Freedom of Information Foundation, addressed me personally as a representative of the petition with the words of support: “In any case, you have achieved your goal to a certain extent - your idea of ​​canceling 187- will be considered in the State Duma - after all, the corresponding bill was introduced ”and appealing to the deputies of the State Duma made a proposal to invite representatives of the petition to the meetings of the core committee of the State Duma.

Further, the final word was made by the head of the expert group, Mikhail Abyzov, and outlined the following theses:

1. The distribution of illegal content should be stopped;
2. Roskomnadzor is working qualitatively in the area of ​​law enforcement, 187- and will be carefully considering the issue of additional funding for the activities of this department;
3. The petition raised a whole layer of problems and it is necessary to refine not only the 187-FZ itself, but also a number of other laws, such as the law on information and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation;
4. The petition encourages us to move to a qualitatively different level of legislation on the Internet, the development of the Internet is much faster than the laws that we introduce.

In this regard, Abyzov proposed to formulate a resolution in which it is necessary to identify several issues and put them to the vote for experts:

1. About expediency of cancellation of 187-FZ;
2. On the need to make additions and changes to legislation on those issues that were identified in the petition, not only in 187-FZ, but also in 149-FZ and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation;
3. On the recommendation to conduct “zero readings” at public sites with the invitation of representatives of the petition. At the same time, the resources of the Public Chamber and the "Veche" can be combined.

But there was no direct voting on the designated points, it was proposed to do it remotely after the final resolution was drafted, taking into account the opinions of the parties to the rapporteurs, which tentatively should occur within a week.
Even before the meeting, a draft Protocol Decision was presented.
After the final conclusion, the decision of the experts will be transferred, according to Abyzov, to the working sites of the Public Chamber and the State Duma.
It was also suggested and supported by the head of the expert committee on the mandatory invitation of petition initiators, which will be considered in future at such expert group meetings.
Following the meeting, we can draw several conclusions:

1. The current state of decision making by the authorities dominates the experts themselves - they are not ready to go against the Presidential Administration and talk about the repeal of the laws that they prepared earlier or form now.
2. On the other hand, there is a moment of understanding that there is a problem of the isolation of society from the process of discussion. But what steps will be taken in this direction - the question is currently open.
3. There is a danger under the guise of supporting the points of our petition, to hold and toughening positions in relation to the Internet in the drafts being prepared.

But we will wait for the final resolution and, after voting on its points, the society will draw final conclusions about the effectiveness of the institute of popular initiatives in a way that we, the citizens of Russia, are presented about whether representatives of government structures listen to the opinions of our citizens in such resonant issues.
A full video of the discussion was kept, but, unfortunately, at the moment it was not presented by our “Open Government”.
There is only a mini-interview of two participants in the meeting:



Based on:
NAG.ru
RosKomSvoboda
Big Government. RF

UPD :
Appeared draining the text of the new bill, expanding the effect of 187-FZ + published position of the "Association of Internet users"
habrahabr.ru/post/197828