I have to disagree with your characterization of the proper role of
the IAB with regard to the NOMCOM process.
I have been on three NOMCOMs, including the one prior to this, so I
too have some experience in the process.
My feeling is that the IAB may have been trying to assert too much
authority in the process recently. That certainly was my perception
with the previous NOMCOM, and the report about this year's activities
suggests that the problem continues.
RFC 3777 is ambiguous wrt some details of the process, especially the
IAB's purview re confirming IESG candidates selected by the NOMCOM.
One could read 3777 so as to allow the IAB to effectively supplant
the NOMCOM, e.g., by refusing to approve a slate of candidates until
one candidate, acceptable to the IAB, is named for a given position.
This is clearly not what 3777 intends, as undermines the NOMCOM role,
yet I have seen behavior that comes close to this.
I think the preferred way forward is to clarify 3777 to make clear
that the IAB must not engage in actions that are tantamount to
usurping the rile of the NOMCOM.
As for the IAB publication you cited in your message, I don't recall
seeing the RFC number for it. If it was just an informational RFC, I
don't believe that has standing relative to 3777, which is the result
of the usual IETF process. The IAB is not empowered to write an
interpretation of an RFC to expand the IAB's role unilaterally.
IETF mailing list