Whilst sub-para (a) of the definition of Party in the RRS says that a protestor is a party to a hearing (if the hearing is a protest), the final sentence in the definition of Party over-rides that (it starts "However") by saying that the protest committee is never a party.

So the protest committee can be a protestor, but they are never a party.

Why do the protest committee need to be a paety? What rights do you get by being a party. 
63.3 right to know of hearing
63.3 right to be present 
64.2 ONLY A BOAT can be protested. 
65.1 informing parties
66.2 reopening

I do not see any need for a pc being a party. 

Mike

It´s only like a "words joke".....PC may protest, a protestor is a party and the PC is not a party.

Now is clear for me.

As @Graham Louth said:
"So the protest committee can be a protestor, but they are never a party."

Catalan, I believe the rule of thumb is that a protest committee is a party 50% of the time, and a disappointment the other times.
It is always a 50-50 shot to enter the room.

Interestingly, that last sentence specifically excluding the PC from “party” didn’t show up until the 2013 quad.

It might have been a last minute addition because the 2013 study version doesn’t seem to show the sentence in the linked submissions related to the change of the def: Party. 

It would be interesting to know what scenario was  presented/thought-of that the WSRC thought it was an important addition. 

Definition Party went through a few changes after 2008.

2008 RRS

Definition Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress; a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or an organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).

62 REDRESS
62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority;


2009 RRS with 2010 update (2010 addition in bold unitalics)

Definition Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).

62 REDRESS
62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;


2013 RRS

Submission 270/11

Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee, or organizing authority or equipment inspector or measurer for an event in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).

Final Rule

Party A party to a hearing is
(a) for a protest hearing: a protestor, a protestee;
(b) for a request for redress: a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested, a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b);
(c) for a request for redress under rule 62.1(a): the body alleged to have made an improper action or omission;
(d) a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.2.
However, the protest committee is never a party.

'Protestor' and 'protestee' are not defined.

Presumably when the Submission went to Council, someone thought it could be improved by breaking it up into subparagraphs and noticed that logically, if a protest committee protested a boat it would become a 'protestor'.

John re: “if a protest committee protested a boat it would become a 'protestor'.”

Mike did a nice job listing all the reasons it’s not necessary for a PC to be party, because they have their abilities independently delineated (adding to Mike’s list, access to the Appeals process through rule 70.2). 

What negative thing(s) happen if a PC is a party?  In other words, what does the sentence protect against?

Ang, what does the sentence protect against? 
Agree, Mike covered the ground.  There doesn't appear to be any actual problem.

Consider these changes, which I quoted but did not discuss in my previous post

2008 RRS
62 REDRESS
62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority;

2009 RRS with 2010 update (2010 addition in bold unitalics)
62 REDRESS
62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;
 
There was concern at that time that boats were using requests for redress against the protest committee to relitigate decided protests.

I'd hazard a guess that making the protest committee never a party seemed to the drafters to be a good idea associated with that.