My understanding of New Diplomacy today: the 'old' one with new actors...

The way I understand diplomacy nowadays have not changed a lot since the start of this module. In my point of view, the main obvious change in New Diplomacy is the new actors that can nowadays be defined as diplomats. This is also true regarding my opinion on the topic. Indeed, four months ago, states’ diplomats were the only actors capable of practicing diplomacy. As I wrote in the first lecture about my way of understanding diplomacy: ‘When head of states do not or cannot meet, there are diplomats to actually keep relationship between those states going.’ Four months after, I am aware of the new different kind of actors that have entered the subject and how that change is the foundation of much more change: rise of communication, openness in the practice of diplomacy, rise of the public opinion’s importance, strength in public diplomacy states’ relationship, etc.
I think all these changes are all interconnected. But the most important one is still the rise of new diplomatic actors, especially NGO’s ones. All of my blog do talk about this, so there is no need for me to keep arguing the same thing once more... But what is for sure is that I do not consider that all UK national citizens are or could be UK diplomats... This would include everybody in the world, and it is not true that we are all diplomats, since to be a diplomats still means something very specific: you have to behave and approach the person you are talking to in a very specific way, and also the topics brought into the agenda have to be made by persons who know specifically what they are talking about, in order to be credible.
So, if Jody Williams might be considered as a diplomat and an important actor in the campaign for banding landmines, Sophie Marceau is not a French diplomat whose work is to preserve French’s image and interest.