gm Polkadot Community,

It is in everyone's interest that all Open Gov proposals are fulfilled. These proposals represent voluntary agreements between the proponents and Polkadot. Some of these proposals involve payments in exchange for products or services.

Considering that these agreements are already being formalized on-chain, I propose that all proposals submitted under the Treasury track, in addition to adhering to their specific terms and conditions, include the following clause as if it were explicitly written into the agreement,

Medium Spender treasury track aplicable clause:

DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE
All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one arbitrator appointed in accordance with the said Rules. No award or procedural order made in the arbitration shall be published. 

Big Spender treasury track aplicable clause:

DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE
All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by three arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules. No award or procedural order made in the arbitration shall be published. 

The only difference between which clause applies is determined by the amount of funds requested versus the number of arbitrators (which affects the arbitration cost). You can find a cost calculator for arbitration procedures here: https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/costs-and-payment/costs-calculator/

It is important to note that this clause would only apply to proposals where the deliverable is still pending. It would not apply to proposals involving retroactive payments.

I look forward to your feedback.