Refactors to support global IP asset identification

[leeren]

Closes #128

To support our migration to a global IP Asset registry, we start with a set of changes that does the following:

• A huge renaming refactor to support new conventions around IPAssetOrgs (previously IPAssetRegistry), IPAssets, and an IPAssetOrgFactory (previously FranchiseRegistry)
• Changes the existing FranchiseRegistry to IPAssetOrgFactory, which will be in charge of creation of future IPAssetGroups (previously named IPAssetRegistry)
• Changes the existing IPAssetRegistry to IPAssetOrg, which will be in charge of authorization and creation of IP assets through a particular IPAssetGroup (previously referred to as franchise)
• Creates a new IPAssetRegistry, which will act as the global registry / SoT for all IP assets (whether they are created through an IPAssetGroup or not)
• Deprecates use of BeaconProxies in the prior IPAssetRegistries (now IPAssetOrg) in favor of immutable clones

This PR has intentionally not yet decided to refactor all existing modules to support the new IPAssetRegistry directly, as it makes sense to break this into a subsequent PR - instead, these changes were made to allow ALL existing tests to continue passing.

The following changes are not in scope for this PR, and should be updated in the future:

• Migrating all modules to utilizing the global IP Asset registry IPAssetRegistry
• Creating a standardized authorization layer for IPAsset registry enrollment
• Creating a pathway for IPAssets not belonging to any specific IPAssetGroup (for this, we should either enable this functionality in the IPAssetController itself or create a default generic IPAssetGroup, similar to the prior franchise 0)

[Ramarti]

Appreciate the hard work in this refactor, it brings us closer to the new architecture.
However, as we talked about last week, we don't have to fear a more drastic approach, since at this stage we can break things, stability of previous versions is not a concern yet and we have a tight schedule.
My proposal is to be more specific on the changes we expect on issues.

[kingster-will]

LGTM.

[Ramarti]

Please @leeren resolve the conversations and merge this even the fork test fails. There is a different workstream to fix that one, and it may even be ignored for now