I largely agree with Sam, I just want to make some additions, here.
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Roger Dingledine <a...@mit.edu> wrote:
>> Open questions we need to decide about:
>>
>> 1) What exactly would we pay for?
>>
>
> As you said, reimbursing users for hosting is probably the best idea
> here, however, we also don't want to get in the situation where users
> feel that they _must_ be reimbursed to run an exit relay. What happens
> if the sponsors funding dries up in a year and no one wants to donate
> bandwidth anymore?
>
> Perhaps only registered companies should be sponsored — as much as I
> hate to limit the scope of the project, I think this (might) prevent
> abuse to a certain extent. Individuals who wanted to run an exit relay
> of their own could still do so, they would just have to use some of
> the money to form an LLC (or whatever their countries equivalent is if
> the scope of this project extends outside of the US). This gives them
> a bit more of an incentive to separate their Tor node form their
> personal server/computing resources (in the form of limited
> liability), which they should probably be doing anyways.
Please don't forget non profits, like 501(c)3, under which probably many
hackerspaces in the US fall or the german e.V., like Zwiebelfreunde e.V., who
run torservers.net.
In general this is the right direction to go. I think organizations are most
likely to be the most reliable partners for this, and they are easy enough to
establish.
Organizations have their own accounting, usually donations to them are tax
deductible, and they are normally run by more than one person, which allows for
a certain scalability by sharing work. Overall, this gives them, and you more
transparency and I think, that makes stuff like 501(c)3 or whatever equivalent
in any other other country near perfect for everyone involved in this.
>
>> I think we should aim to constrain ourselves to talking about >=100mbit
>> exits
>>
>
> I disagree; as others have said, lots of 10mbit relays will do as much
> for the network as a few 100mbit relays. Most peoples use case is
> simply checking email, browsing the web, reading news, etc. which
> don't necessarily need a huge 100mbit relay.
I disagree again. We're on the verge of cheap,affordable 10GBit (as in
torservers has just gotten an offer for unlimited traffic 10GBit for $750 with
SWIP from a hoster who seems Tor friendly). This means, that 100mbit is getting
cheaper and cheaper, as does GBit. 100mbit already comes at a price diadvantage
compared to gbit, we don't nead to start on cost-effectiveness of 10mbit, not
to mention that many people in the west could run 10mbit nodes from home by now.
>
>> 2) Should we fund existing relays or new ones?
>>
>
> It's probably not wise to distinguish between the two. If you only
> fund new relays, you may see a lot of old relays shut down (and then
> restarted as "new relays" to get funding). So you might as well just
> sponsor both. More thoughts on this in a bit.
Exactly.
>
>> - Should we prefer big collectives like torservers, noisetor, CCC,
>> dfri.se, and riseup (which can get great bulk rates on bandwidth and are
>> big enough to have relationships with local lawyers and ISPs), or should
>> we prefer individuals since they maximize our operator diversity? I think
>> "explore both approaches" is a fine first plan.
>>
>
> "Explore both approaches" sounds good; I think we'll find that
> operator diversity leads to a healthier (more anonymous) network.
> Again, I lean towards small guys that will run a few nodes at
> different data centers, but not Sole proprietorship's.
Maximize diversity, definitely, but do the organizations approach at the same
time. Counting in hackerspaces and the existing organizations running Tor nodes
should give enough diversity for a start, while going organizations only will
(hopefully) encourage more people to establish organizations around Tor.
>
>> - For existing relays who pay for hosting…
>
> Picking a certain monthly transfer target might solve this; so
> existing relays that are fast could apply for aid, and it would give
> slower relays incentive to speed up. The challenge then becomes, where
> do we set this cutoff? I'm inclined to think it could be kept
> relatively low and still be very beneficial for the network.
>
>
>> the Tor network must not end up
>> addicted to external funding. So long as everybody is running an exit
>> relay because they want to save the world, I think we should be fine.
>>
>
> This is the core of the entire discussion. We might also consider only
> funding relays in areas where we need the diversity by taking into
> account…
>
>> There's network diversity (AS / upstream network topology), organization
>> and operator diversity, jurisdictional (country) diversity, funding
>> diversity, data-center diversity, and more.
>>
>
> …this stuff.
>
>>
>> 7) How do we audit / track the sponsored relays?
>>
>> How should we check that your 100mbit relay is really working? What do
>> we measure to confirm its capacity? To a first approximation I'm fine
>> assuming that nobody is going to try to cheat (say, by colluding with
>> an ISP to write legit-looking invoices but then just split the money).
>>
>
> Probably better to monitor this carefully from the get-go. Sponsors
> like to know where their money is going, and continued funding could
> hinge on it.
My opinion, too. Sponsors like to see whats going on and they also like to hear
from you on a regular basis.
Julian
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
