You mention no interested party but the paragraph you refer to now is based on Conflict of interest.

Michael, you see them as something distinct from each other?

Yes I think I do, but then no one had more draconian rules based on their appeal cases than the USA. I mean a parent in one heat not being on a protest committee in another heat in an Optimist race. Your appeals forbade it, and I though the new rule was to overturn the established USA practice.
I think the definition has changed in the rule book so with conflict of interest, we appear to have added "may reasonably appear to have a personal or financial interest which could affect his ability to be impartial."  So conflict of interest is wider but the rule wording 63.4 is also extended. I do mention this to judges now in hearings not to ask if the objects to a party, but to ask if there are perceived to be any conflicts of interest. I think it leads to different answers.

The point in the presentation is to associate the concepts with the rules.  The concept of having an independent "uninterested" judge is codified in our rules in those associated with conflict of interest.  Am I missing something there?

I just like to stay with what the rule book now says, and "uninterested" does not say to me as much as "Conflict of interest"  
I as a judge am "Interested" in every decision but do not have a conflict of interest.

I think I understand.  However, we use the term interested party here as a general term for conflict of interest.  And I see it defined that way in most English dictionaries.

Thanks Paul for sharing your presentation.

Due process and the related concept of "natural justice" is flexible, whereby the more serious the subject matter, the more stringent will be the requirements. However, the requirements of due process can be altered by agreement.

With sailing, competitors agree to be bound by the Racing Rules of Sailing, which include rules about the ways that disputes will be dealt with. If those rules fall short of their perceived rights of due process, then they have nevertheless agreed to be bound by those procedures as being the rules of the game. That is similar to the way that commercial entities can contract to resolve disputes by arbitration rather than resorting to the courts of law. Whether or not that is fair, it is what they agreed to do.

The issue occurs once the ramifications of a hearing go further than "the game" such as when national team selection is at stake or if someone's employment may be effected. In those circumstances, I believe protest committees need to think a bit further than simply whether they are complying with due process requirements the RRS.  

John, your explanation is exactly why I think understanding the basic concepts is important.  When confronted with a situation which isn't addressed by the RRS, we must understand that procedural justice requirements still apply event though the RRS doesn't provide a formula for the procedure.  My assertion is that we should provide a hearing as a minimum in almost every instance.

The example I used in the presentation was this - A hearing request is submitted by a competitor at an event asserting that another competitor parked in a handicap zone.  On the face of it, a protest committee may be tempted to turn it away, suggesting that the competitor should perhaps call the city parking enforcement and then throw the request in the trash (this example isn't that far from several examples that really happened).  

In the above example, the initiator may come to the hearing and tell the PC that in fact the SI"s for the event requires that competitors comply with club rules, and the club rules state that only handicapped members of the club may use the handicap parking spaces.  And when we hold a hearing, all parties should be present if possible. If we attempt to determine validity without the respondent, we risk depriving that party the opportunity to oppose validity.

I've heard excuses by PC's that "the matter was already heard" or that "it really isn't a protest."  I think that when you hear a PC making excuses for not conducting a hearing, they've already conceded that they are denying basic due process. My assertion is that the PC must call a hearing whenever any request is submitted, and then determine if it is valid, not dismiss it before the initiator has an opportunity to be heard.  

Paul, I agree with you 100%. Efficiency is a matter of doing things in a more skilled and timely manner. It is not cutting corners.