2018年4月，纽约市律师协会仲裁委员会发布了一份报告，介绍了不同仲裁机构在商事仲裁中的仲裁员任命程序。该报告提供了关于仲裁员任命方法的指导意见，这些指导意见可能不大容易在机构的仲裁规则和网站中看到，目的是提高透明度和获取这些信息。该报告是基于公开数据、用户体验和对机构代表采访的广泛研究结果。旨在为可能不会经常处理商事仲裁的公司内部法律顾问和外聘律师（outside litigation counsel）提供便利。

报告原文请见：“阅读原文”

报告的每一部分概述了仲裁机构和机构选择双方当事人提名的仲裁员和机构任命的方法，同时鼓励当事人和律师与仲裁机构联系，讨论可能适合他们案件的任命方案。该报告还讨论了机构作为指定机构在任命紧急仲裁员时，以及在特殊情况下的作用，比如多方当事人仲裁（ multi-party arbitration），合并仲裁（consolidated arbitration），涉及东道国的仲裁，和快速仲裁（expedited arbitration）中的小额索赔等。

该报告还讨论了该机构处理仲裁员挑战和仲裁员替换的方法。该报告旨在为商事仲裁中的当事人和律师提供有用的参考资料，进一步促进有关仲裁员任命程序的对话。

In April 2018, the Arbitration Committee of the New York City Bar Association released a report that describes the arbitrator appointment procedures of various arbitral institutions in commercial arbitrations. The report provides guidance on arbitrator appointment options that may not be readily apparent from the institutions’ arbitration rules and websites in an effort to increase transparency and access to this information. The report is the result of extensive research based on publicly available data, user experience, and interviews with representatives of the institutions. It is designed to be user-friendly to corporate in-house counsel and outside litigation counsel who may not regularly handle commercial arbitrations.

the American Arbitration Association (AAA); the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), the international arm of the AAA; the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR); JAMS; and theLondon Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).

Each section of the report provides an overview of the arbitral institution and the institution’s approach to the selection of both party-nominated arbitrators and institutional appointments, while encouraging parties and counsel to contact arbitral institutions to discuss appointment options that might be suitable for their case. The report also discusses the role of the institution as an appointing authority, in the appointment of emergency arbitrators, and in special situations such as multi-party arbitration, consolidated arbitration, arbitrations involving state entities, and small claims inexpedited arbitration. The report also discusses the institution’s approach to arbitrator challenges and replacement of arbitrators. The report is designed to be a useful reference for parties and counsel in commercial arbitrations that furthers the dialogue about arbitrator appointment procedures.