That’s correct, it’s not there. But that is not because it is missing - more a deliberate exclusion at the design stage. The fields released via the ICP connection data API on EMI were originally consulted on back in 2015.
The information in your example clearly shows it's useful to separate the two ICPs. There may be other ICPs where this field has been used to include other details where it is less obvious they should be released. In this case, the field is not really being used as a property name in an addressing sense. Poor labelling of fields can lead to the poor or inconsistent population of data within the registry. Perhaps this field would be better called the ICP ‘description’?
The good news is that the Authority is currently consulting on releasing additional fields via the ICP connection data API.
It would be great if you can assist your organisation in their response to this consultation, including providing examples to make your case.