While RRS 63.3 (a) (1) [all parties consent, or” ] allows for an ‘approval to proceed’ by consent I would wonder if that is really sufficient - if for no other reason than ‘optics’ and or future challenges etc?

I intimately raise this subject as: for myself, I also sponsor, train and enter an underprivileged local youth sailing team here in the Philippines, on my racing yacht here – 53ft LOA, under the RNZYS ‘Overseas Member’ banner (in the national series, comprising of local talented ex dinghy racing kids, to help them vocationally and to support the expansion the development of sailing in the Philippines etc), and I also sit on the protest committee (or international jury) for those same campaign events.

With the Chief Judge (and my own mentor, as a ‘JIT’) and Organisers for these national events, we prior and jointly decided and adhere to: my conflict of interest is significant of course and is stated at every skippers briefing venue for each race series, I only sit as a member of the protest committee for protests outside of the class that my youth team is entered into (automatic recusal if otherwise – but allowed to quietly sit in the room during such hearings, just as a JIT) and I am never to be aboard the yacht when racing.

I wholeheartedly agree with this strict approach (as opposed to the perhaps more flexible RRS 63.3 (a) (1)). I am not sure if there are other officials in this same boat (pun intended).