feat: add XCS registry permissioning and docs

[czarcas7ic]

Closes: #4442

What is the purpose of the change

This PR introduces updates to the XCS Registry feature of Osmosis. The changes made in this branch aim to improve the security and usability of the XCS Registry by adding permissions and documentation.

Specifically, this branch introduces a new permission system for the XCS Registry. With these permissions, the contract admin can now restrict access to the registry, enabling them to control who can write, modify, enable, and disable the contents of the registry. This new feature enhances the security of the registry by reducing the risk of unauthorized access.

This PR also introduces a basic README.

Brief Changelog

• allows the contract governor to make any registry modifications
• allows the contract governor to set an authorized address for a specific source_chain
  • that address can make any registry modifications to their specified source_chain, but nothing else
• starts a README.md for the crosschain registry contract
• refactors the previous execute.rs tests to
  • include contract calls from Authorized, Unauthorized, and Contract Owner addresses
  • combines success and failure test cases to prevent repeating boilerplate

Testing and Verifying

Modified tests to attempt to run CRUD operations on Authorized, Unauthorized, and Contract Owner addresses

Documentation and Release Note

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes? (yes / no)
• Is a relevant changelog entry added to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md? (yes / no)
• How is the feature or change documented? (not applicable / specification (x/<module>/spec/) / Osmosis docs repo / not documented)

[nicolaslara]

This looks good to me, but we should deal with not being able to directly modify existing items. That can be another PR, and I think it can either be disallowing changes or just requiring a time delay for gov to cancel them if necessary.

Same with deletions.

[nicolaslara]

I wonder if we want to expose this at all. If so we may want to change the name, as "unwrap" should refer to actually sending the message

[czarcas7ic]

True, we really have no reason to expose this. If you agree then I can remove it here!

[nicolaslara]

fixed in 618a6d6

[nicolaslara]

@czarcas7ic made some small changes when removing the unwrap query. This should be ready for merge if you don't have strong opinions about my changes