Just putting it out there, in a ‘blue sky’ manner: is there any sort of a case to be had at some juncture in the future to offer an expeditious Mediation process - by mutual agreement between the parties but be non-binding (?); especially considering that in some parts of the world where sailing events are now held, there is, due to social & cultural sensitivities etc, sometimes a reluctance for parties to come forward and to engage in the formal Protest / Hearings or Arbitration processes (I have experienced it myself, with the protest committee sitting around ‘twiddling their thumbs’ so to speak, waiting for protests to be raised – that are certainly ‘out there’, but not raised) .
There would perhaps need to be exclusions of course in such a Mediation process (e.g. RRS 2, 44.1b and 69 incidents).
The members of the protest committee could act in that capacity - perhaps, jointly alongside the PRO, in a collaborative manner with the parties. Give their considered opinion, strictly within the RRS, on fault and remedy (penalty) and the parties are then free to accept this or otherwise.
If thought to have merit, I would be happy to support (within my obvious limits as just an IJ-IT, but considerable experience in other international sectors), along with another or others from this forum, the development, drafting and issuance of a ‘white paper’ to World Sailing on the future initiative (?).
We always want the competitors to enforce the rules on themselves before coming to the room. Coming into the room means there is either a fundamental disagreement about the facts or a fundamental disagreement about the rules, and sometimes both.
If there were some sort of mediation with a non-binding opinion rendered by an official, there is a danger that you could taint any subsequent hearing by allowing parties to rehearse their whole cases and by effectively giving at least one party arguments from an official, presumably a member of the PC, to cite to the rest of the PC before they are allowed to ask their questions. I am assuming here that an entire panel is not involved, because if they are, what is the point?
Logistically, I am not sure how such a process could fit within the normal Protest Time Limits, and the last thing we would want to do, in the interest of efficiency, is to add even more delays top the existing process.
We are better off improving education about the process, being visible at the skippers meeting and walking the docks, and then making our hearing and decisions as expeditious and predictable as possible. If competitors know we will be predictably fast and fair, a lot of the reluctance to the room will dissipate.