Professional Network
People, institutions, expertise, professional roles and the record of contribution are connected through persistent identities rather than isolated event lists or informal contact databases.
About · Founding phase
DIPLOMACY.ID
DIPLOMACY.ID is a founding thematic module of a Transdisciplinary Applied Knowledge Network. It begins with International Relations, Diplomacy & Strategic Studies and connects professional identity, institutions, knowledge, working groups and practical projects in one continuous environment.
The problem is not a lack of information. It is fragmentation: publications are separated from the people who created them, professional networks from demonstrated competence, and projects from the history of ideas and contribution. DIPLOMACY.ID is designed to reconnect these parts.
People, institutions, expertise, professional roles and the record of contribution are connected through persistent identities rather than isolated event lists or informal contact databases.
Articles, working papers, policy briefs, files, discussion, review and thematic memory form a living knowledge environment rather than a publication archive that stops at release.
Working groups convert questions and evidence into reviewed outputs, practical concepts, partnerships, implementation and feedback.
DIPLOMACY.ID is not built around passive membership. A participant adds expertise, evidence, review, institutional capacity, technology or project leadership — and the system preserves the connection between that contribution and the person or organisation that made it.
Bring biography, roles, expertise, publications, cases and projects into one structured record.
Connect each paper, review, project role and practical result to its real contributors.
Find specialists and institutions through shared questions, regions, disciplines and active work.
Move beyond commentary by contributing evidence, cases, policy options, review or implementation.
Show not only what you know, but what you helped design, test, deliver and improve.
Founding participants can shape taxonomy, governance, editorial practice, product architecture and tools.
Ways to participate
Participants are not expected to work across the whole system. They join one or more workstreams according to their competence, institutional responsibility and available time.
Publish selected work, contribute evidence, join peer review, co-author outputs and help define research questions.
Bring real constraints, field experience, cases, institutional knowledge and implementation criteria.
Create an institutional presence, nominate representatives, host a workstream and provide expertise, data or implementation capacity.
Contribute to institutional architecture, product design, UX, engineering, data, security, integrations and technical audit.
Develop standards, taxonomies, metadata, review procedures, document statuses and publication workflows.
Formulate a specific question, assemble a cohort, organise the cycle and carry a reviewed result into practical action.
The first stage can already be organised through existing ID.PAGE profiles, résumés, publications, communities, partner pages, projects and files. The quality of the network depends on structured information and clear evidence, not on the number of registrations.
Add your real name, current role, institution, location, professional photograph, short biography and public contact or institutional link.
Use the résumé as a structured professional record, not only as a job-search document. Include:
Upload three to five selected works and at least one case or project. For each item, state the year, type, short abstract, your role, the result and a file or source link.
Follow the project, share your ID.PAGE profile link and indicate your professional role, fields, regions, languages and preferred type of participation.
Join the professional environment that matches your discipline or question. A community is persistent: it connects people, knowledge and future projects over time.
A project begins with a specific question, a defined cohort, a deadline, contribution formats, review criteria and an expected output. It is not a general discussion space.
Submit an evidence note, case, working paper, policy option, peer review, technical component or implementation concept. After review, link the final contribution and project role back to your résumé.
The platform becomes coherent only when identity, knowledge, community and action are not confused. The distinctions below show where each type of information belongs.
Mission, participation rules, governance logic, access levels and instructions.
Not a feed or archive. It explains how the whole institution works.
Public identity, biography, current role, institutional affiliation, communities, activity and communication.
Dynamic public presence. It introduces the person; it does not replace a structured professional dossier.
Skills, experience, scientific activity, education, languages, selected works, created projects and practical cases.
Permanent evidence of competence. Unlike the profile, it is structured and cumulative.
Discovery of participants and access to their individual professional identities.
A directory, not a résumé. It helps find a person; evidence remains on the person’s own pages.
Universities, think tanks, public bodies, companies, associations and other organisations participating institutionally.
Represents an organisation. Individual expertise remains attached to named people and roles.
Continuing thematic or professional environments, relationships, discussion and the formation of future work.
Persistent and broad. A community does not need a final deadline or one predetermined output.
Articles, policy briefs, reports, working papers, interviews, research outputs and reviewed public materials.
A dated authored output. It is different from a living Wiki entry or a draft contribution inside a project.
A specific question, defined participants, time frame, contributions, review process, expected result and practical next step.
Time-limited and result-oriented. Unlike a community, a project should conclude with an output and a recorded contribution.
Evidence notes, cases, scenario papers, policy options, legal notes, peer reviews, technical modules and implementation concepts.
Contribution, not necessarily publication. It can be a draft or project input before review and consolidation.
A structured account of a problem, the participant’s role, actions, partners, result, evidence and lessons learned.
Shows what was done. A publication demonstrates knowledge; a case demonstrates applied responsibility and result.
Definitions, methods, chronologies, institutions, country notes, standards and stable thematic reference.
Continuously maintained knowledge. It is not an opinion article and should not depend on one publication date.
The core purpose is to preserve the connection between people, evidence, professional judgement, decisions, implementation and updated knowledge.
Public profiles, articles, interviews, events, educational materials and approved project results.
Peer review, expert discussion, co-authoring, thematic groups and institutional collaboration.
Working documents, internal evidence, policy support and project governance — only after access controls are technically validated.
The project separates what can be used now, what must be configured for the pilot, and what requires technical audit or further development. This prevents a future vision from being presented as an already completed product.
Founding cohort
Create a professional identity, add selected evidence of competence, choose a role, join a workstream and contribute to the first complete cycle from question to reviewed output and practical next step.
DIPLOMACY ID31 July 2026