Changes

** The supplementary procedures do contain a "prevailing party" provision, allowing the arbitration panel to "shift and provide for the losing party to pay administrative costs and/or fees of the prevailing party." This provision only applies to administrative costs and filing fees submitted to ICDR.<ref name="intproc" />

** The supplementary procedures do contain a "prevailing party" provision, allowing the arbitration panel to "shift and provide for the losing party to pay administrative costs and/or fees of the prevailing party." This provision only applies to administrative costs and filing fees submitted to ICDR.<ref name="intproc" />

** Each party is responsible for its own legal costs, except that ICANN shall cover the full cost of an IRP brought by the Empowered Community.<ref name="intproc" />  In the event that the Claimant does not "participate in good faith" in the Cooperative Engagement Process and ICANN is the prevailing party in the IRP, the IRP Panel "shall award to ICANN all reasonable fees and costs incurred by ICANN in the IRP, including legal fees."<ref name="art4" />

** Each party is responsible for its own legal costs, except that ICANN shall cover the full cost of an IRP brought by the Empowered Community.<ref name="intproc" />  In the event that the Claimant does not "participate in good faith" in the Cooperative Engagement Process and ICANN is the prevailing party in the IRP, the IRP Panel "shall award to ICANN all reasonable fees and costs incurred by ICANN in the IRP, including legal fees."<ref name="art4" />

* The supplementary procedures require the IRP Panel to "consider accessibility, fairness, and efficiency (both as to time

* The supplementary procedures require the IRP Panel to "consider accessibility, fairness, and efficiency (both as to time and cost) in its conduct of the IRP."<ref name="intproc" /> They also establish a strong presumption against in-person meetings and witness testimony for hearings related to the dispute. In each case, the IRP Panel may only permit an in-person proceeding or witness testimony if it determines that it is necessary for fairness, necessary for furtherance of the Purposes of the IRP, and that those considerations outweigh the time and financial expense of in-person hearings or witness testimony and cross-examination.<ref name="intproc" />

and cost) in its conduct of the IRP."<ref name="intproc" /> They also establish a strong presumption against in-person meetings and witness testimony for hearings related to the dispute. In each case, the IRP Panel may only permit an in-person proceeding or witness testimony if it determines that it is necessary for fairness, necessary for furtherance of the Purposes of the IRP, and that those considerations outweigh the time and financial expense of in-person hearings or witness testimony and cross-examination.<ref name="intproc" />

* The supplementary procedures presume the existence of an IRP Standing Panel, but in the event that the standing panel does not exist at the initiation of the Dispute, the ICDR shall select members of the panel based on its rules.<ref name="intproc" />

* The supplementary procedures presume the existence of an IRP Standing Panel, but in the event that the standing panel does not exist at the initiation of the Dispute, the ICDR shall select members of the panel based on its rules.<ref name="intproc" />