due to the unavailability of the NAF. The district court did not have an opportunity to consider or rule on this issue, and it is not properly before this Court. We note that the unavailability of the NAF does not necessarily render an agreement to arbitrate unenforceable simply on the basis of its incorporation in the arbitration document as the forum for the arbitration. “A split in authority exists over whether the unavailability of the NAF as a forum for consumer disputes renders arbitration agreements contemplating NAF as a forum unenforceable, or whether the Federal Arbitration Act in such cases requires the [c]ourt to appoint an arbitrator.” Jones v. GGNSC Pierre LLC, 684 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1163 (D.S.D.2010); see Brown v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 211 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). But cf. Carr v. Gateway, Inc., 395 Ill.App.3d
holding that choice of forum was not integral where the arbitration agreement incorporates the nafcode byreference and the nafcode selects the naf as the forum for arbitration holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute  the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause holding that the confrontation clause does not require a showing of unavailability as a condition precedent to the admission of the outofcourt statements of a nontestifying coconspirator holding that the unavailability of the naf does not destroy the arbitration clause