I personally don't think this is necessary. If a written protest uniquely describes the protestee then it has (in my view) "identified" them in compliance with RRS 60.3(a). RRS 60.3(a) does not specify any particular way in which the protestee is to be identified and so I personally think any way that uniquely identifies them should be acceptable under RRS 60.3(a). (Possible examples include: the sail number of the boat, the bow number of boat, the name of the boat, the name of the helm of the boat, a description of the logo displayed on the spinnaker of the boat, and so on).

Graham re: "If a written protest uniquely describes the protestee then it has (in my view) "identified" them in compliance with RRS 60.3(a)"

I think maybe I could buy that.  Just to keep that idea going, and explore that ("uniquely describes") a bit .. 

In a J/22 class regatta where the vast majority or possibly all boats are white hulled, describing the protestee as "a white hulled J/22" would be insufficient?  But, if there are only a couple colored hulls, then saying "a blue hulled J/22" would be ok (without an SI modifying 60.3(a))?

PS:  Are we concerned that without changing 60.3(a) we are conflating "describing" and "identifying"?

If I'm asked the 2 questions .. Can you describe the object? .. Can you identify the object? .. aren't those 2 different answers?

Isn't "uniquely describing" something just a step in the process of identifying something? I.e., once it is uniquely described, it can be identified. In reverse, identification can be directly achieved by quoting a sail/hull number or by determining the sail/hull number of the only pink boat in the fleet. I see this as synonymous in the context of 60.3(a). However, the problem with this is that it puts the onus on the PC to convert a unique description into an identification, which is in my opinion is undesirable.

Angelo
If you say that a J/22 has a blue hull then you are "describing" that J/22 = "giving an account or representation of [that boat] in words" (Collins English Dictionary).
If you wrote that the protestee was the J/22 with a blue hull, and there was only one J/22 with a blue hull, then you would be "identifying" that J/22 = specifying "the individual characteristics by which a [boat may be] recognized" (Collins English Dictionary)
If you wrote that the protestee was a J/22 with a blue hull, but there was more than one J/22 with a blue hull, then you would be describing but not identifying the protestee - since your description does not include enough information to identify an individual boat.

Rene
If a boat can be uniquely identified from the description in the hearing request form then I personally think it has been identified. I do not see any requirement in the rules for the protest committee to translate the description of a boat in the hearing request form into a sail number/hull number/boat name prior to the start of the hearing (albeit they may choose to do so if they wish - but if there is any uncertainty over which boat is being described, then to my mind it would better if they did not). That is not to say that the protest committee shouldn't invite the protestor to try to find out the sail number/boat number/boat name of the boat they are protesting - for example by finding the boat, or a member of the the crew of the boat, or someone else who does - and to update their protest with that information if they are successful, but I do not think a protest should be found to be invalid just because it doesn't include the sail number, hull number or boat name of the protestee. What the protest committee might have to do however, at the start of the relevant hearing, is decide whether the description of the protestee in the hearing request form "identifies the protestee". If the protestee is present then that would tend to suggest that it does (and the protest committee can then ask them for their sail number/hull number/boat name). If however they are not, or the wrong boat is present, then that may indicate that perhaps the written protest is deficient in this regard. It is only then that I think the protest committee might need to take evidence as to whether the description of the protestee in the hearing request form "identifies" a specific boat. And to my mind (in most circumstances), I think the burden of proof in this situation should fall on the protestor - what evidence do they have that their description identifies the specific boat they are protesting? (I think the situation might be different if there was injury or serious damage).

Hope that's all clear and helpful (and noting that I fully accept that others might disagree - it is for individual protest committees to interpret the rules in the first instance).

I agree with Graham and Renee.  The issue is not whether "a blue hull" uniquely describes the protestee, but whether "or uniquely describe" adds anything to what the rule already says.  I don't think it does -- it just makes the sailing instructions longer.  The additional words also raise the question of what they mean that's different from "identify", so that makes the SIs harder to read.  Not an improvement, I think.

Rule 60.3(a), Delivering a Protest
“When delivered, a protest shall be in writing and identify the protestor, the protestee, and the incident.”

It seems to me that events using scoring software with a list box, which helps protestors select protestees by sail number has an advantage over paper hearing requests. The list box eliminates entering incorrect sail numbers.  Who uses paper hearing request forms? Clubspot, favored by several large Classes, and some other scoring systems do not include online hearing requests or scoring inquiries.

60.3(a) may be changed. For example:

“When received, a protest shall be in writing and identify the protestor, the protestee, and the incident.”

The idea being the jury secretary checks over the requests for missing information and that the information is legible before receiving them. When checked, the Date and Time received with signature indicates the request is received. Any thoughts on changing from delivered to received? Does the change place an onus on the jury secretary or just open a small window for corrections?