I agree that the best practice would be to use the existing verbiage provided by US Sailing.
I also agree that you actually need stronger judges to properly use arbitration. And, it's not meant to replace a full PC, but to limit the number of full hearings needed. This only works if the arbitration judge is very experienced and respected, otherwise the sailors will always proceed to the full hearing, and the result is that you just added needless complexity for zero gain.
I fully disagree that IJs ignore Appendix M or "throw procedure to the wind." The IJs I've worked with follow the same process for all hearings, and that is basically what's spelled out in Appendix M.
On a personal level, when hearing protests, I like to have the book open to Appendix M. I find that it adds a level of formality, and reassures sailors that we're following due process, and they will get their time to talk. This tends to alleviate people interrupting one another, shouting, etc.
