<rant on>
Well, to me the USA situation where in E "... You don't monitor an ATC frequency, you don't need to. ..." and RAPACs comment in the DP about the USA "... but away from an aerodrome VFR pilots typically turn down the volume on their radios and don’t monitor any frequency. ..." worry me mightily., because the only way that the USA system *can* work is that it is *E*, not G, *and* they have multiple times more ATC staff *and* smaller ATC sectors *and* much better surveillance than what we can economically justify to separate *and* divert IFR from the VFR.
<rant off>
arrooiiight. here's my proposal for the DP.
Why *not* have a multicom that starts at a lowish MSL, eg 4000' AMSL ?
We currently have a whole pile of CTAFs, many with their own frequencies, plus quite a few largish and weirdly-shaped broadcast zones, also with their own frequencies.,
so instead of trying to figure out if one is 'in the vicinity of a whatever, or just which CTAF/Broadcast frequency one needs to use, it all becomes just one multicom below a defined level.
Downsides are ;
-more received traffic on the multicom, particularly with A/C on descent. (line-of-sight and all that)
-confusion about where a location actually is.
Upsides are ;
-less traffic on Area frequencies.
-less confusion about which frequency to monitor.
There will be 'edge/corner' cases, but they should be resolvable with some re-assigning of FIA boundaries.