I too have had the unenviable pleasure of coming into contact with the document. A few facts.
It is definitely not an Airservices proposal. LAMP is an entirely different model with widespread consultation and support , except (I am told) for a few areas still to be negotiated. Yes, I understand considerable resources (and finances)have been invested to date. Unfortunately that is the cost of consultation and development of procedures and safety cases (as should occur for such a significant change).
NAS is a RHS proposal which was written under his guidance by another. Fairly obvious when you read it as although disjointed and vague on facts it is far too cogent and literate to be Dick's words.
It is exceedingly vague on how it will work (usual modus operandi). Generally at some later date it will be claimed that we all misinterpreted it and don't understand.
No, the document is not available (as far as I can tell) electronically at the moment or for widespread assessment. I think you can all guess why.
Just to keep your interest these are some, but not all, of the highlights as best I can discern them.
Class E across the top of Class C terminal areas (should be interesting as VFR can operate no radio, no xpndr and no clearance).
E corridors down to 1200'(700' in terminal areas) where there is an IAL (procedural separation should make for creative scheduling in IMC). Also interesting as it was he who prevented E being deployed in lower levels when it was first introduced.
Abolition of MBZs(free) for user pays Unicoms. Selective memory is a great thing as it allows him to forget who introduced MBZs in the first place.
A "claytons" DTI in G ie. put in a plan and you will get DTI (and pay for it). Traffic will be limited to radar observed (if in coverage) and anyone else who bothered to plan and pay.
As I say no wonder it has not been released widely otherwise all the stand up comedy venues would go out of business.